Canada: Cormorant & Cyclone thread

[Cyclic Hotline]

Vancouver Sun. (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=6d2a2940-a7e7-4926-a5f2-2efdcbb9c7c5&k=94054)


A lack of parts has sidelined most of the Canadian Forces' search-and-rescue helicopters on the West Coast, leaving only one of five in working order and forcing maintenance crews to scavenge components from other choppers.


I guess some things never change?

No matter the platform?

[heli1]

So what's the word on the Canadian Navy S92/CH148 delays ??
I see the rumour is the programme has slipped from late 2008 to late 2010...keep those Sea Kings going boys !!!

[dmanton300]

"So what's the word on the Canadian Navy S92/CH148 delays ??
I see the rumour is the programme has slipped from late 2008 to late 2010...keep those Sea Kings going boys !!!"

Defense Aerospace are saying three year slippage, which pushes it nearer to late 2011/2012. And pushes the Sea Kings three years nearer to their bus-passes.

[Dan Reno]

For less $$, the agreement was commercial customers got head-of-the-line privileges.

[heli1]

So Agusta Westland was right then...Sikorsky couldn't meet the contract requirement !
Considering the Canadian need was urgent this sounds a lame excuse to me ,especially as some of the early civil sales were kinda subsidised to establish a broad market front ..more likely the DND has come to a new agreement rather than instituting the late penalty clauses.
It also sounds like plans to use the first aircraft for utility support in the Gulf/Afghanistan next year ahead of qualification of the ASW mission package are also gone out the window.
Still..nice to know NH90 isn't the only one having delivery problems.

[dmanton300]

I hear that the Fleet Air Arm has a few Merlins sat around at Culdrose not doing much. Perhaps if the Canadians ask nicely we might lend them ten or so to bridge the gap until the Cyclone *IS* ready?

No? Just a thought!:}

[XV666]

So what's the word on the Canadian Navy S92/CH148 delays ??
I see the rumour is the programme has slipped from late 2008 to late 2010...keep those Sea Kings going boys !!!

The Globe & Mail article: (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080109.wchop0109/BNStory/Front/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080109.wchop0109)


Sea King replacements on hold

STEVE RENNIE
Canadian Press
January 9, 2008 at 8:56 PM EST

OTTAWA — The delivery of new military helicopters to replace Canada's aging fleet of Sea Kings will likely be delayed by 30 months and Ottawa is threatening to deeply penalize the U.S. contractor “thousands of dollars” for each day the choppers are late, The Canadian Press has learned.

A senior government source, speaking on background, said late Wednesday that department officials told Public Works Minister Michael Fortier on Monday that Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. would be late with the long-awaited delivery of new CH-148 Cyclones.

Sikorsky will be penalized thousands of dollars each day the Cyclones are delayed, the source said.

Calls to Sikorsky were not immediately returned on Wednesday.

The Defence Department referred all calls Wednesday night about the delay to Public Works.

“We are assessing the implications of what a delay on the delivery of the maritime helicopters will have on the operational requirements of DND and PWGSC is considering all possible options with respect to Sikorski's default on the timely delivery of the Maritime Helicopters,” wrote Jacques Gagnon, Mr. Fortier's communications director, in an e-mail to The Canadian Press.

Ottawa signed the contract in November 2004 to replace the 40-year-old Sea King fleet. The deal required Connecticut-based Sikorsky to build 28 helicopters and begin delivering one per month starting in November 2008.

The Defence Department first set out to replace the Sea Kings in the 1980s, and former prime minister Brian Mulroney's Conservative government decided in 1992 to buy 50 EH-101 helicopters in a $5.8-billion deal.

But Jean Chrétien's Liberals tore up the deal when they came to power, paying $500-million in penalties for backing out of the contract.

Retired air force colonel Lee Myrhaugen, a former deputy commander of the military's maritime air group and a veteran Sea King pilot, said the military made every effort to extend the Sea Kings' life cycle and the delay could put further strain on the aging choppers.

“If it's going to be extended some 30-odd months, that's just going to stretch that rubber band that much further,” Mr. Myrhaugen said.

“The bottom line is, you can only stretch that rubber band so far. The calculations for the delivery date of the Cyclone were based on the fact that they had extended the life of the Sea King to its maximum.”

(Don't let HC find out...... ;)

[NickLappos]

heli1 has a point. Another indication is that the successful 1st flight of the fly by wire controls occurred about a month ago, and this is part of the CH-148 kit. To fly, certify and productionize this in a year is quite a challenge.

I have seen no official Government or Sikorsky announcement, just the press report, which quoted the receiving units - a credible source, imho.

[helimarshaller]

Sorry CEFOSKEY
I got it wrong. I meant 2 to 3 years as written about here.

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

[waspy77]

Lucie Brosseau, a spokeswoman for Public Works and Government Services Canada, said the contract with Sikorsky "allows for an excusable delay."
However, she there would be discussions with the company "and fact-finding" about whether the delay is excusable.



Paul Jackson, a spokesman for Sikorsky, confirmed the company was talking with government but couldn't say much more.
"The Cyclone will be the most sophisticated maritime helicopter in the world," he said. "We are working with the government to address issues that have impacted delivery schedules and to allow for delivery as soon as possible."


MHP quite a challenging contract.

[heli1]

Listening to a high ranking CAF officer discussing Canadas helicopter plans earlier this week it was noticeable that the H-92 didn't feature...and he clearly had given up on forecasting delivery !

[Dan Reno]

Cost overruns endanger copter deal

Ottawa warns it could kill contract after U.S.-based Sikorsky requests up to $500-million more in its bid to replace aging Sea Kings


DANIEL LEBLANC and STEVEN CHASE AND BRIAN LAGHI
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
April 30, 2008 at 1:30 AM EDT

OTTAWA — Federal officials are threatening to cancel a $5-billion contract with Sikorsky Inc. because the U.S.-based helicopter maker is asking for up to $500-million in extra funds to replace Canada's 40-year-old Sea Kings.
Senior sources said the relationship between Ottawa and Sikorsky took a turn for the worse after the firm acknowledged this year that it was running late in its plans to provide 28 high-tech Cyclone helicopters to the Canadian Forces.
The government's controversial efforts to replace the Sea Kings, which go back to the early 1990s, are now complicated by Sikorsky's request for more funds to deliver replacement helicopters.
Sikorsky officials refused to comment on the current negotiations, but senior federal officials said the company has requested between $250-million and $500-million in new funding.

(javascript:;)Sikorsky Inc. won a competition in 2004 to provide 28 Cyclone helicopters to the military, agreeing to deliver the first helicopter in January of 2009. Now, sources say, delivery could be delayed by nearly two years. (The Canadian Press)

Sources said there is talk in government that the Cyclones need a “more powerful engine” to meet Canada's requirements, and that delivery could be delayed by nearly two years even with additional money. High-ranking sources said the contract dispute is causing concerns at the highest levels of the government, and that cancellation of the contract is a possibility. If new funding were to be offered, the government would be seeking ironclad guarantees that Sikorsky would deliver the aircraft at the new agreed-upon time.


“All of the options are on the table,” a federal official said.
“We can cancel or come to a compromise.”
The Conservative government of Brian Mulroney had ordered new helicopters to replace the Sea Kings in 1992, but former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien cancelled the purchase as soon as he came to power the following year.
Conservative officials are still furious at the Liberal decision, arguing that the deal would have already allowed the Canadian Forces to replace the Sea Kings with Cormorant helicopters.
Sikorsky won a competition in 2004 to provide 28 helicopters to replace the fleet of Sea Kings. At contract signing, Sikorsky agreed to deliver the first helicopter in January of next year.
The maximum penalty on the contract for late delivery is $36-million.
Sikorsky president Jeffrey Pino was in Ottawa recently to discuss the delays in the production of the Cyclones with government officials. A spokesman for Sikorsky, however, refused to elaborate on the ongoing negotiations.
“We hope to have an agreement within the next several weeks, by the end of May,” company spokesman Paul Jackson said.
The government is now working to determine when it can take delivery of the first helicopter, and what it needs to do to get there.
“Once we have completed our review of the contractor's claimed reasons for delay, we will be in a position to determine Canada's next steps,” said Lucie Brosseau, a spokeswoman for Public Works Canada.
“Canada is keeping all of its contractual and legal options open to minimize delay in procuring new maritime helicopters,” she said.
A defence source said that the government is in discussions with Sikorsky to determine “what capabilities could be delivered and at what point.”
Another government official said there are concerns within the government regarding the aircraft that will be delivered by Sikorsky.
The issue, according to the source, is “a perception that Sikorsky cannot deliver a helicopter that is compliant to what was ordered.”
However, sources in the defence industry said a cancellation of the contract would not help the Canadian Forces meet their original need, which is to replace the Sea King helicopters as soon as possible.
“There is no plan for what they could do after,” an industry specialist said.
“Whether they like it or not, [the government and Sikorsky] are married.”
General Rick Hillier, the Chief of the Defence Staff, has expressed frustration at the delay in the delivery of the helicopters.
“We just need to get an aircraft, we need to get it quickly, and we'd like to have it in service as soon as we possibly can,” he said earlier this year.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080430.wchoppers30/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080430.wchoppers30

[212man]

It's simple really - anything involving Airbus, Eurocopter or Augusta Westland is crap, was awarded through political deviancies/exigencies, will be delayed and cost millions to sort out, anything Boeing or Sikorsky is great, the best thing since sliced bread, and any detractors are talking arse.

Easy!

B787 anybody?

[Lt.Fubar]

...the Cyclones need a “more powerful engine”...How much more powerful ? It should already have more power per ton empty than the Cormorant :hmm:

[Dan Reno]

Ottawa refuses to pay extra for helicopters

Sikorsky must live up to $5-billion contract, Public Works Minister says


DANIEL LEBLANC
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
May 1, 2008 at 5:03 AM EDT

OTTAWA — The Harper government refused yesterday to fork over any extra cash to Sikorsky Inc., which has asked for hundreds of millions in additional funds to deliver promised helicopters to the Canadian Forces.
Issuing a warning that applies to all federal suppliers, Public Works Minister Michael Fortier said Sikorsky has to live up to its $5-billion contracts to provide 28 Cyclone helicopters to replace Canada's 40-year-old Sea Kings.
"When the government signs a deal with a supplier for a specific good at price X, that's the price the government should pay for that good," said Mr. Fortier, a lawyer and former banker.
"Where I come from, a price is not an approximation, it's not an estimate. ... In this case, the price was set at contract signing."
Sikorsky won a competition in 2004 to replace Canada's aging fleet of Sea King maritime helicopters. At signing, the firm agreed to deliver the first replacement aircraft next January.


But Sikorsky told the government earlier this year that it will not meet the original deadline, invoking a delay of up to 30 months.
Senior government officials told The Globe and Mail this week that Sikorsky is also asking for $250-million to $500-million in extra funding to give additional power to its helicopter.
However, Mr. Fortier said the U.S.-based firm has to find a way to meet its contract. If that doesn't happen, he made a thinly veiled threat to cancel the deal and find another way to replace the Sea Kings, which are nearing the end of their life cycle.
"I gave clear direction to my deputy minister that he was to try and break the logjam and find a solution, but at the same time, we are working, as we should be, on alternative solutions if we can't come to an agreement with the supplier," Mr. Fortier said in an interview.
There is hope in government that a solution could flow from the fact that the newly installed chief executive officer at Sikorsky's parent company, United Technologies Corp., is Quebecker Louis Chênevert.
Sikorsky officials are refusing to comment on discussions with the government, except to say the goal is to reach an agreement by the end of the month.
Government officials have been told that the prototypes for the Cyclones are struggling to reach key requirements set out by National Defence, such as conducting a typical anti-submarine mission in two hours and 50 minutes.
There is speculation in the aircraft industry that Sikorsky wants to provide the Canadian Forces with a helicopter that has a more powerful engine, a bigger gearbox and a fifth rotor, which would allow it to meet all requirements.
However, such a helicopter would be more costly than the original four-bladed version proposed by Sikorsky.
The Conservative government of Brian Mulroney had ordered new helicopters to replace the Sea Kings in 1992, but former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien cancelled the purchase as soon as he came to office in 1993.
"If the previous government had respected the contract that had been signed, we wouldn't be here, because we would already have the helicopters. They made a decision and they'll have to live with it," Mr. Fortier said.
NDP MP Dawn Black said replacing the Sea Kings has been a "saga of ineptitude" involving both the previous Liberal and the current Conservative governments.

[Dan Reno]

Ottawa has it dead right: not a dime more for Sikorsky


The Gazette

Published: 3 hours ago
The tragicomic running saga of buying helicopters to replace the Canadian Forces' decrepit Sea Kings added another chapter last week. Sikorsky, a division of United Technologies Corp., is trying to shake down Canadian taxpayers for an extra quarter of a billion dollars - or maybe half a billion dollars. Why? The answer could be summed up in one word: "Oops."
The helicopter maker, which won the $5-billion order in 2004 for 28 Cyclone choppers, has decided, after careful consideration, that it will need those extra hundreds of millions to meet all the specifications and produce an aircraft that can perform all the jobs that Canadian Forces explained in great detail to all bidders a mere 17 years ago. The additional swag will pay for more powerful engines and for five-blade rotors instead of four-bladed ones.
Not on your life, replied Public Works Minister Michael Fortier. That might have been a shock to Sikorsky - defence procurement is usually pretty clubby - but it is an admirable stance, and we hope Fortier sticks to it.


His position is not just limpid, but appears unassailable legally: "When the government signs a deal with a supplier for a specific good at price X," Fortier said, "that's the price the government should pay for that good ... A price is not an approximation; it's not an estimate."
He then hinted unmistakably that unless Sikorsky fulfills its obligations at the agreed-upon price, Canada will look elsewhere for a supplier.
That should not be an empty threat. It has been 17 years since Ottawa decided to replace the Sea Kings, and the aged machines have been involved in 10 deaths. This fiasco over the choppers has truly been a bi-partisan effort. Both the Liberals and Conservatives have played with this deal over the years to gain political mileage. Fortier's pushback against Sikorsky is a refreshing change from business as usual.
Seventeen years is enough. Sikorsky should deliver the helicopters with the capabilities it promised when it won the deal. And at the price it promised.

[HVHmt]

Now would it make a difference if they altered the order, possibly keep the five blades however drop the fly by wire option?
For that matter just get on board with the civilian operators who are already enjoying the success of the aircraft.
What would the benefit of fly by wire (on the 92 specifically) be?

[212man]

The additional swag will pay for more powerful engines and for five-blade rotors instead of four-bladed ones.

Bags we go second!

[Sikorskyfan]

I believe that fly by wire is primarily being installed to off-set the weight being added by installing the main and tail rotor fold mechanisms and other sundry items?
So let’s review; forty-eight months from contract award to develop, test, certify and put into production a complete new and untested control system, haul down and deck securing system, foldable tail and main rotor, weapon carrying capability plus all of that electronic gadgetry in the back. (And still try to convince yourself that it is still a COTS aircraft).

I believe that Sikorsky builds the best maritime helicopters in the World and if anyone could have pulled this off it would have been them, however I suppose that the impossible takes a little longer.

All of this kinds of begs the question of why did AW quietly drop their law suite against the Canadian Government recently? The law suite was based on the opinion that Sikorsky would not be able to meet the contract, specifically the 48 month time line and therefore should have been eliminated from the bidding. Apparently they were right. :confused::confused::confused::confused:

[dmanton300]

I guess if they have trouble getting funding for more powerful engines they could always add a third. Add an extra rotor blade, make the cabin a bit larger, rename it Chimo or Petrel and I reckon you'll end up with. . . . well, pretty much what they could have had in the mid-late 90's.
Ho hum. . . . .

(edited May 12th) Remarkable how quiet this particular topic has become since Sikorsky all but admitted what Canada really needed was a Merlin and asked for another half billion dollars to build it for 'em.

One can't help but quote ZH844 from those halcyon days of 2004 when Sikorsky won:-
" I would be careful with the comments as give it five years and you will be eating tons of humble pie!"
Oops! Two's up on yer crystal ball ZH!

[ZH844]

My man on the inside tells me that the Canadian Government has requested a meeting with 'another supplier' to discuss the purchase of a Sea King replacement aircraft due to problems with their current airframe vendor.

The 'another supplier' is based in North America with partners in the UK and Italy who will manufacture the airframe..

The rest is up to you to work out!

[SASless]

Oh lordy......meet with a new builder of helicopters....let's kick this can a bit further down the lane shall we?:ugh:

The Government made the decision to replace the Sea King seventeen years ago.....before they decided not to replace it.....and decided to replace it....and now they want to replace the aircraft they wanted/did not want/wanted....and they have not laid hands of the first one yet?:mad:

Perhaps Lockheed can build one for them like the US Prez aircraft which is so much further down the production ine?:{

In the end they could buy CH-53K's for what they are spending on paper helicopters.:ooh:

[plt_aeroeng]

SASLess:

Although the CH-53 may be available by 2012 (0r 2015, if it follows the pattern of Sikorsky's reported progress on the H-92), it could have some difficulty landing on the decks of small frigates.

With respect to the Presidential aircraft, I note that although the contract was let some time after Sikorsky's Canadian contract, the first US101 test aircraft flew a year ago, and they now have several hundred flight test hours on that and another one. Sikorsky has yet to fly prototype 1 of the Canadian version.

At least the reported H-92 rate of progress is consistent with the extended development period of the original S-92. That period, though, is hardly a knock on Sikorsky. It is perfectly understandable that an entirely company funded development may have been constrained by available funds.

It seems that almost all airframers have gotten in the habit of making solemn promises of rapid development and delivery and then suffering scorn and ignominy when the development time turns out to be just as the old wise heads would have said. (Airbus A380, Boeing 787, JSF being only the most recent examples)

Companies today are run by the marketeers. The pilots and engineers left after the cuts of the late '90s don't have the ear of management, perhaps partly because of lesser experience, perhaps partly because no one wants a realist (dour pessimist in a marketeers lexicon) to dampen the rosy predictions.

The other main problem is that customers are more naive, and it is easy to believe brochure claims for nonexistent aircraft. Such vehicles haven't yet demonstrated their flaws, while off the shelf aircraft have documented problems and limitations.

It seems we are seeing some of the corollaries of Norm Augustine's laws being demonstrated.

[Sikorskyfan]

I still wonder why AW dropped their lawsuit against the Cdn Government. The lawsuit was based on the notion that Sikorsky could not deliver within 48 months of contract award, as was clearly stated in the contract requirements, and therefore should have been found non-compliant and eliminated. They quietly dropped the suit about six months ago in order to normalize the Cdn Gov/AW relationship in order to be considered for future work. Not at all like AW to walk away like that?

[Sikorskyfan]

CH-148 Cyclone Helicopter Completes 1st Flight Successfully

(West Palm Beach, Fla., November 17, 2008) -- The first CH-148 Cyclone helicopter, which is being developed by Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. for the Canadian government as a replacement for its long-serving SEA KING(TM) helicopter fleet, has completed its first flight successfully at Sikorsky's Development Flight Center in Florida. Sikorsky is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX).

The flight occurred Saturday, Nov. 15. Steered by Sikorsky Test Pilots John Armbrust and Rick Becker using state-of-the-art, fly-by-wire technology, the aircraft hovered and accomplished low-speed handling tasks including forward flight at speeds reaching 30 knots, and sideward and rearward maneuvers. The helicopter, Tail No. 801, will continue to undergo a series of increasingly demanding flight tests leading up to certification and production deliveries.

Sikorsky will build 28 CH-148 helicopters for the Canadian government. "The CH-148 helicopter will be a world leader in sophistication and capability for maritime helicopters," said Program Manager Dan Hunter. "Today's successful first flight represents a huge milestone, transitioning the program from the prototype build to the flight test stage. The aircraft performed beautifully, easily achieving each maneuver attempted. We're extremely pleased."

The CH-148 helicopter represents the next step in Sikorsky's long planned extension of the S-92(R) helicopter into the H-92(TM) helicopter product line. It is equipped with a fully digital, fly-by-wire system designed to improve significantly the aircraft's maneuverability, safety and effectiveness. The CH-148 helicopter further builds upon Sikorsky's rugged S-92 helicopter, which meets the most demanding safety standards in North America and Europe.

Among the most sophisticated rotary wing aircraft in the world, the production CH-148 helicopter will be an extremely versatile, multi-mission aircraft with capabilities including anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, search and rescue, and troop and cargo transport. It will be fully equipped for ship-based operations including automatic blade and tail fold systems and a deck to aircraft recovery assist system. Capitalizing on proven S-92 helicopter capabilities that include a glass cockpit with advanced avionics, systems allowing flight into known icing conditions, flaw tolerant components and state-of-the-art search and rescue equipment, the CH-148 helicopter will incorporate additional mission systems including Forward- Looking Infrared Radar (FLIR), 360 degree search radar, passive and active acoustics systems, threat surveillance and countermeasure capabilities, and network link communications.

"The stringent qualification and certification standards of the S-92 helicopter will be further extended through the Canadian military certification process resulting in an aircraft that will meet the most exacting civil and military standards in the world," said Hunter. "Its proven and expanded design focused on reliability, maintainability and safety will provide operational capabilities at world-class life cycle support cost levels."


Source : Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.

[500e]

What is new? most products don't work as described, or have built in problems that the end user has to put up with until the manufacturer finds time to correct, ( strange how the user finds them in a few days\ weeks after all the testing that is done).
Delivery dates!! Well we think of one then hope we can get it finished or hope that customer wants change so as to extend delivery .
You may guess I have delivery \ functional problems with a supplier, it requires someone who can deliver a bit of pain to manufacturers to focus the sales marketing departments on reality.
A lot of products are UPOS.
Rant over :{

[N Arslow]

Companies today are run by the marketeers. The pilots and engineers left after the cuts of the late '90s don't have the ear of management, perhaps partly because of lesser experience, perhaps partly because no one wants a realist (dour pessimist in a marketeers lexicon) to dampen the rosy predictions.

How true this is!!

When did any of us look at an amber caption (through rose tinted helmet visor) and say - oh, I am sure it will be OK, let's ignore it. Thankfully we ARE trained to be dour pessimists!

It is a shame this is only recognized as an attribute in the cockpit!

[SASless]

Plt....

My point was not to actually suggest the 53K be bought....but to point out the amount of money that has already been spent for paper helicopters would pay for brand spanking new 53K's. That even by government standards is a pot full of money to go no good end.

Which is a situation that should result in someone being hung from the yard arm!

[Aser]

The picture:

http://www.flugrevue.de/admin/dateien/upload/ch-148-erstflug_zoom.jpg
Sikorsky CH-148 makes its first flight on 15 November 2008 (Photo: Sikorsky).

Regards
Aser

[widgeon]

nice paint job :ok:

[N Arslow]

...oh... you want paint... we will have to add a fifth blade to lift the weight. It could put us back a few years as well, you know...

[widgeon]

Cyclones fail endurance test - Winnipeg Free Press (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/cyclones-fail-endurance-test-53673902.html)

"Paul Jackson, a spokesman for Sikorsky, confirmed the interim maritime helicopter will be 10 to 20 minutes short of the 170-minute requirement."

"He added that the company will achieve the requirement by decreasing the aircraft's weight and improving the engine's power capabilities and transmission."

I tell my wife I'm going to lose weight too :)

What is the curent S92 endurance in standard offshore config.

[212man]

We don't know the mission profile being set, so can't make a comparison. It's clearly not a straight cruise profile - more likely a high speed cruise with some loitering and/or hovering involved. Current offshore aircraft will cruise for over 3 hours with reserves. Even with a fuel burn of 1600 lb/hr you'd have 3 hours and a 15 minute reserve - and that's way above typical fuel burn (nearer 1400 lb/hr)

[ptflyer]

Cyclones fail endurance test - Winnipeg Free Press (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/cyclones-fail-endurance-test-53673902.html)

Cyclones fail endurance test

But colonel sure contract will be met

By: Michael Tutton
19/08/2009 1:00 AM |


Ottawa agreed to pay $5 billion in 2004 for 28 Sikorsky Cyclone helicopters.



HALIFAX -- The Canadian officer who will oversee the first flights of Canada's new fleet of navy helicopters next year says the choppers currently can't pass an endurance test that requires them to fly for nearly three hours in extreme conditions.
"It (the helicopter) falls short of the endurance requirement as allowed under the revised contract," Col. Sam Michaud, commander of Nova Scotia's 12 Wing Shearwater airbase, said.
The MH-92 Cyclone helicopter's original contract had specified that 28 choppers be delivered, at a rate of one per month, beginning in November 2008.
However, a revised contract announced last year allowed for the delivery to begin in November 2010. It also doesn't require the choppers to meet the 170-minute flying time until after the 19th helicopter has been delivered in 2012.
But Michaud said he's confident the Cyclones will satisfy the requirement, and that the aging fleet of Sea King choppers can operate until then.
Still, he agreed there will be some limits -- such as shorter missions and the need to use more helicopters to perform the same mission -- until the endurance requirement is met.
"So right now, the issue with the interim maritime helicopters is they're having some challenges getting to that endurance number that we've asked for," Michaud said.
The base commander explained that the helicopter is heavier than originally expected, and as a result fuel is consumed more quickly.
"That's why the whole weight issue is a big one," Michaud said.
He said that's why the federal government requirement of flying two hours and 50 minutes in conditions where temperatures surpass 35 C won't be met when the first choppers arrive.
Paul Jackson, a spokesman for Sikorsky, confirmed the interim maritime helicopter will be 10 to 20 minutes short of the 170-minute requirement.
But he said the company has little doubt it can achieve the federal government's performance requirements under the revised contract.
"Meeting the final configuration performance as required in the extreme conditions that this customer operates (in) is important," he said in an email. "We do not consider weight as a big issue."
He added that the company will achieve the requirement by decreasing the aircraft's weight and improving the engine's power capabilities and transmission.
Lianne LeBel, a spokeswoman for the Defence Department, said the final helicopter will have "an enhanced version" of the engine as designed in the original Cyclone.
That engine will be designed to lift the 13,185 kilograms the helicopter is expected to weigh by 2012, she said.
The government has said the new engines and other changes will add $117 million to the $5-billion cost.
-- The Canadian Press


The story is all so familiar in Australia. A contractor promising the problems will be resolved, the customer not prepared to admit they made a mistake trying to develop a "new" naval helicopter.

Will it all end in tears or will the the Canadian government continue to lap up Sikorsky's excuses?

[500e]

And they turned down the 101

[Variable Load]

And they turned down the 101

How unreasonable, given the fantastic service and availability the Cormorant (EH101) is giving in Canada at the moment. :eek:

[Matthew Parsons]

Variable Load said, "How unreasonable, given the fantastic service and availability the Cormorant (EH101) is giving in Canada at the moment."

??? What have you heard about recent service and availability of the Cormorant fleet?

[Variable Load]

Nothing specific, just what's out in the public domain. There were a number of news articles recently about lack of availability, etc.

Here's one news extract from early June:

Only half of the surveillance aircraft and rescue helicopters designated to guard Canada's coastlines are able to report for duty on any given day, newly released figures show.

And that poor availability rate has defence critics wondering how the country would cope with a major disaster.

Figures presented to the Senate security and defence committee show the air force is able to muster only nine of its 20 CP-140 [the fleet eventually will be reduced to 10] aging maritime patrol aircraft on any given day for surveillance of the country's three coastlines [two are now in Afstan--another pressure on the CF from the mission].

And just seven of the 14 CH-149 Cormorant search-and-rescue helicopters, purchased just a few years ago, can be called upon for duty.

Figures for the antique CH-124 Sea Kings are even worse: a mere 10 out of 28 aircraft can be spooled up for operations aboard Canadian warships, senior defence officials told the committee.

A defence analyst said it's clear the age of the air force fleet is catching up with the military as elderly aircraft spend more time in the shop and less time on the flight line.

Rob Huebert of the University of Calgary also said it's a condemnation of the convoluted, dysfunctional procurement systems that have sidetracked or delayed replacement planes and helicopters.

The air force has become a "thin blue line" despite the billions of dollars spent recently on new heavy-lift transports and battlefield helicopters, Huebert said in an interview.

A senior air commander said late Tuesday the availability of aircraft is "always of concern" but the service is managing.


Cheers
VL

[Matthew Parsons]

Not sure where you got that from, VL, but I'd be looking for a new source. That clip is full of error and half-truths. Try some of the official sites.

[Hilife]

Not sure where you got that from, VL, but I'd be looking for a new source. That clip is full of error and half-truths. Try some of the official sites.

The Danish ordered 8 SAR and 6 troop transporter AW101’s. Having sold the latter to the MoD in an agreement that replaces these machines with new, it is my understanding that these new machines will be SAR platforms, bringing the SAR force up to 14. The Danes were looking for 80% operational availability for these new platforms, but have struggled to achieve 50% even with improvements with spares and engineering. This larger fleet is what the Danes believe is required to replace the aging fleet of 8 Sea Kings.

Prior to the arrival of 15 CH-149 Cormorants, the Canadian’s operated a fleet of 12 CH-113/113A Labrador/Voyager’s in the SAR role. I believe that the Canadian’s were hoping for a 75% readiness rate for the their SAR platforms, but in June of this year, availability rates reported to the Senate Security and Defence Committee reached a meagre 50%.

Last December, the findings of a report into poor availability of the Cormorant fleet suggested that in order to meet the target range at all four SAR bases and assuming an ideal access to spares, a fleet of 25 aircraft would be required.

Availability of planes, helicopters worries defence watchers - Yahoo! Canada News (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090602/national/aging_air_force)

Do you note a common thread here?

[500e]

"The story is all so familiar in Australia. A contractor promising the problems will be resolved, the customer not prepared to admit they made a mistake trying to develop a "new" naval helicopter.
Will it all end in tears or will the the Canadian government continue to lap up Sikorsky's excuses?"
ptflyer.
They always have excuses, (we will learn lessons take your comments on board etc)
I am fighting another manufacturer (not helicopter) regarding product that does not preform, all I get is "it meets this spec" but the firmware does not preform as per the operating expectation.
Remind you of anything in the helio industry?.
Most of us can not bring enough pressure to bear & when governments role over what chance do the rest have.
Products should at least meet the design spec. I understand that there will be in service failure's ( why is it that the customer can find them in hours days and manufacturers not in months \ years of in depth testing) especialy with software, we get new software weekly and there are glaring problems within the first days use in 10\15% either a function does not work as industry standard or has operating glitch.
Thread creep sorry, bad day & only Monday here:(

[The Sultan]

Now that the Army is shelving the UH-60 fly-by-wire program how is this going to impact the Canadian 92 program?

Fly-By-Wire Black Hawk May Be Put On Hold | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/UH60M-121409.xml&headline=Fly-By-Wire%20Black%20Hawk%20May%20Be%20Put%20On%20Hold&channel=defense)

I thought the Army General put on only a marginal positive spin on it.

The Sultan

[IFMU]

Crosby said he is responding to a request from Maj. Gen. James Barclay, chief of army aviation, for more baseline M helicopters.

Barclay told Crosby, “I need Black Hawks.
Does the Cyclone use the same FBW as the Black Hawk? Or is there really no tie into the Cyclone program from this article?

What I read in the article is the key mistake Sikorsky made was doing too good of a job on the UH60M. The Army wants more.

-- IFMU

[Senior Pilot]

Further delays from Sikorsky :(

The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/sikorsky-faces-more-setbacks-in-delivery-of-new-helicopters/article1470533/)


Sikorsky faces more setbacks in delivery of new helicopters

Manufacturer unable to live up to revised deal signed in 2008, which would see initial delivery of 28 helicopters this year

Daniel Leblanc
Ottawa — From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Published on Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2010 10:39PM EST Last updated on Thursday, Feb. 18, 2010 3:27AM EST

There is one more twist in the seemingly never-ending saga of the replacement of Canada's Sea King helicopters.
More than a year after announcing a four-year delay in the long-running project, Sikorsky has just acknowledged that it is facing another setback in the delivery of the first of 28 aircraft.
Details are scarce, but Sikorsky is saying it can't live up to the new schedule that was negotiated with Ottawa 14 months ago, and is unlikely to offer all of the promised equipment in the first round of deliveries.
“Sikorsky has advised the government of Canada of potential delays, and we're working to assess the implications of these potential delays,” said Chris Hilton, a spokesman for Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose.
According to the initial contract signed in 2004, the Canadian Forces were to begin receiving fully compliant Cyclone CH-148s within four years, by 2008.
However, the government and Sikorsky announced at the end of 2008 that the first maritime helicopters would only come in 2010, and would not meet the full list of specifications in the contract. According to the deal, the first fully compliant helicopters would come in 2012, about eight years after the signing of the contract.
In a recent report, Sikorsky's parent company, United Technologies Corp., said it has launched a new round of discussions with Ottawa regarding the delivery of the first interim helicopters, scheduled for late this year.
“Sikorsky is in discussions with the Canadian government concerning an anticipated delay in completing certain elements of the specification for the interim aircraft,” said UTC's annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States.
A spokesman for Sikorsky refused to expand on its production problems. “As a matter of policy, we do not comment on discussions with customers,” Paul Jackson said.
Mr. Hilton, however, said the Harper government “fully expects Sikorsky to live up to its legal obligations.”
Before it awarded the $5-billion contract to Sikorsky in 2004, the government warned that it would impose as much as $36-million in penalties for late deliveries.
However, in the secret deal signed in late 2008 between Ottawa and Sikorsky, the government decided not to collect any of the penalties. In fact, it agreed to pay an extra $117-million to Sikorsky to obtain “leading-edge technology.”
The Conservative government of Brian Mulroney had ordered new helicopters to replace the Sea Kings in 1992, but Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien cancelled the purchase as soon as he came to office in 1993.

[[email protected]]

All for the want of designing the MRGB properly in the first place:ugh:

[widgeon]

I suspect the delays are for something other than MGB .
according to DND website number 801 an 802 are flying in West Palm Beach.

"The base commander explained that the helicopter is heavier than originally expected, and as a result fuel is consumed more quickly"

I would expect that the range is the biggest issue at the moment.

What is the percieved threat that this machine will protect us from ? , the world has changed since the original rfp , maybe they could buy 5Billion dollars woth of Robbies and just discard them after each mission. ( Pilots could swim back to ship )

[tottigol]

http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/3565/sik012420in20west20palm.jpg
In an unprecedented business move, one of the GoM largest operators painted their S-92s in a low visibility livery and armed them with advanced weaponry to permanently dispatch the competition.:eek:

This configuration is also being proposed for operations by yet another large operator around the Falkland Islands oil fields.:E

[bobsaget123]

So......I'm pretty sure that picture is not public domain.

[212man]

I guess it is now ....!

Ps: that's a busy head!

[pasptoo]

Well she's up north for icing trials! :cool: I got several photos via facebook!

Das suite and esm! just hope it gets a descent weapon fit. :rolleyes:

Awesome machine.......one day...., when I grow up......, just maybe......:ok:

Pasptoo.

[[email protected]]

And doesn't that look like a 360 radar under the aircraft - don't they know you only need a 120?:)

The B model of the S-92 is inbound with a new gearbox and aux fuel tank fit - wouldn't take much to add the radar to produce the ultimate SAR helo would it?

[pasptoo]

Not much in the way of ground clearance though! looks like 4 or 5 inches at best. Anyway wouldn't be any good for going backwards with an onshore wind as it would have a massive blind spot!!!! :ugh:

Still, wouldn't mind the job though ! Air Force going to sea with the Navy, now that IS integration.

[albatross]

Looking at the Torpedo install I'm thinking -AUX Tank - with rapid fuel dump capability.:E

Could this be a way around civil customer gripes about internal aux tanks?:ok:

Yeah I know it would interefere with the SS6 floats -just some "Blue sky -out of the box random thoughts."

[Hilife]

You can have whatever you like, but it comes at a price and that is where it doesn’t always make sense for the civil market to follow the military.

I should imagine the mounting of external aux tanks on the S-92 is pretty straightforward. However, I suspect the costs and penalties associated with not only beefing-up the sponsons and cabin structure, but LCF penalties to the dynamic components as a result of increased external load that far out and drag would result in a substantial rise in DOC’s and that I suspect is the reason for the civil S-92 having internal aux tanks.

[pasptoo]

Looks like the radar approach has missed the flight deck. Maybe there is a blind spot forward too!! :ouch:

At least landing on the jetty is within limits!! :E

Still the cab looks awesome! Hope there isn't too much penalty on drag though. :ok:

[widgeon]

Does anyone know if the tail fold is powered ? It used to be a wonderful sight to see the sea king go through the tail and blade folding sequence. I had heard the mail blade fold was electric

[rigpiggy]

Cause we would trust your equipment after the Sub Fiasco?

[heli1]

According to the latest HeliData Sikorsky expects to sell 10 H-92s to the Mexican navy next !

[tottigol]

Yes! We need the Mexican pesos.
What next, Colombia, Nicaragua?

[725_driver]

it's amazing how windows are obstructed by the sponsons !!

the field of view is really tight

[Hilife]

I guess that’s the price you pay for not having fuel sloshing around under your feet.

Having self-sealing breakaway fuel tanks on the outside of the cabin structure has many benefits, not the least of which comes into play should you ever have the misfortune to experience an in-airframe drop test of the fuel system. ;)

Of course, if you want to see what’s directly below you, you could always use the FLIR, look out of the door, the bubble windows and even the ramp.

A ramp, now there’s a novel idea......

[725_driver]

Prefer having the fuel in the cargo ??

Looking with the FLIR ! why not ! try it !

But, yes, having a ramp is really a good idea. especially when you have no lateral doors !! or a so small one...


http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/5784/imgp37001.jpg

[widgeon]

Would there be any limitations ( aside from speed ) of opening the ramp in flight ?

[pasptoo]

Would there be any limitations ( aside from speed ) of opening the ramp in flight ?

As I understand there could be stability issues with opening the ramp in flight. Large slab lowering into the airflow etc. That may well have been covered in any airworthiness tests, however, opening the top half of the ramp would not have the same issues, but make sure everything is secure in the cabin first!

As for 725 Driver.....are you still trying to convince them they should have bought the Cougar?????? If you are looking for a bite, then you can't beat a top heavy aircraft from the 1970s that has blades going the wrong way!

How many countries have used a marinised Puma or derivatives for ASW over the last 40 years????

it's amazing how windows are obstructed by the sponsons !!

the field of view is really tight

Does the self loading cargo need a field of view in a military helicopter? After all this is an ASW/Maritime aircraft, the view is always water!:E

The pilots of the CH124 never get to see the bear trap and always get in the trap. (well a few occasionally miss - but that is sport - "In the Trap, Trapped! Down Tail Probe. Centre Lock, Centre Rail! :ok::ok::ok: ).

Pasptoo

[725_driver]

where did you read I supposed the 92 inferior because of the lateral doors ??

Having 2 doors gives you many ways to drop your commandos quickly ! but of course it's not at all any kind of superiority : it's only more comfortable for the pilot ; and this is effectively the problem of not having the hoists (2) on each side.

Yes, flying with doors opened is of great interest in some unfriendly countries...

[Lt.Fubar]

Commandos ?

The CH-148 is ASW/ASuW platform, not Spec-ops insertion/extraction.

In other roles - yes a big doors on both sides give some advantage - but that's what S-70 is still for. But a ramp and wide-enough door is good enough (2-3 rappelling points)... although I would still prefer both a ramp and two wide doors of NH90 ;)

[squib66]

Sikorsky continues to fail to deliver the MHP weapons system:
DND/CF | Backgrounder | Maritime Helicopter Project (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=00&id=3486)
Not a good sign for selling the once rejected S-92 as a presidential helicopter with a complex mission system, especially as a second gearbox foot has failed completely in flight too.

Alos see these recent threads:
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/394474-s-92-gearbox-crack.html
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/422490-sikorsky-s-92-pros-cons.html

[squib66]

CEFOSKEY - The 'General Dynamics' seems to be a common problem with the S-92 first all those cracks and now the mission system!

But when it comes to Sikorsky bashing I think the Norwegian helicopter safety report speakes volumes.

The latest S-92 joke amongst LAEs is 'whats is Extremley Remote' - the gearbox published TBO!

[Senior Pilot]

URFgJ0WmZ0A

[Cyclic Hotline]

Rescue choppers still not available (http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Rescue+choppers+still+available/4129835/story.html)

[oldgrubber]

Looks like the Canadians have finally lost patience with Sikorsky, they must have taken a leaf out of the Turkish book (the Turkish have demanded an extra Seahawk as payment for delays).
Ottawa to rule on fines for late choppers | iPolitics (http://ipolitics.ca/2011/01/25/ottawa-to-rule-on-fines-for-late-choppers/)

[Dan Reno]

Crown headaches for Sikorsky (http://westfaironline.com/2011/10714-crown-headaches-for-sikorsky/)

Alexander Soule (http://westfaironline.com/author/alexander-soule/) | Feb 04, 2011 | Comments 0 (http://westfaironline.com/2011/10714-crown-headaches-for-sikorsky/#comments)
http://westfaironline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CycloneArrival-10_l1-300x200.jpg (http://westfaironline.com/2011/10714-crown-headaches-for-sikorsky/cyclonearrival-10_l-2/) A Sikorsky-built CH148 Cyclone prototype helicopter lands in Nova Scotia.

Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. is set to commence deliveries of maritime helicopters long overdue to the government of Canada, with the manufacturer absorbing losses on the initial aircraft shipped but still promising profits over the lifetime of the deal thanks to a lengthy service contract.
Separately, a Sikorsky consortium could be facing insurmountable problems in a ballyhooed multibillion-dollar agreement with the United Kingdom for search-and-rescue helicopters, as reports surfaced that the U.K.-controlled Royal Bank of Scotland is withdrawing from the deal amid allegations of improper bidding tactics by a consortium member.
Stratford-based Sikorsky is the largest employer in Fairfield County, and remains the top performing division of United Technologies Corp. as fourth-quarter revenue rose 7 percent from a year ago to nearly $2.1 billion and operating profits totaled $239 million. Sikorsky delivered 74 large helicopters during the quarter and some 250 for 2010, as it contributed $6.7 billion in revenue to UTC’s total sales of $54.3 billion for the year.
According to UTC Chief Financial Officer Greg Hayes, the company is still in talks with the U.S. Department of Defense for an order extension totaling an additional 500 helicopters, which would furnish Sikorsky with years more of steady work in Stratford. Talks continue even as Sikorsky works on a heavy-lift helicopter for the Marine Corps and pursues a possible contract to provide armed scout helicopters to the Pentagon based on its X2 high-speed prototype.
And Sikorsky is finalizing an updated S-76 helicopter, which Hayes said the company will likely not begin deliveries on until 2012 and which it is counting on to reinvigorate commercial helicopter sales.
Even as it does so, Sikorsky is readying to deliver the first of 28 CH-148 Cyclone helicopters originally promised Canada in 2008, before contract delays Sikorsky says were the result of changes in performance specifications by Canada.
While the cost overruns will impact Sikorsky’s profit margins in the immediate future, Hayes said the program will still pay off in the long run.
“The initial helicopters are each going to go out with a $10 million check,” Hayes said, in a conference call with investment analysts. “The Canadians, they want these aircraft. We’ve done a lot to make sure the business is the best search-and-rescue helicopter out there. We think there’s still possibilities for international sales, too. So this will be a good program over the long term, but it’s going to be painful for Sikorsky as they deliver this first (helicopter).”
According to a report in the Financial Times, RBS pulled out of the Soteria consortium in Great Britain that includes Sikorsky, CHC Corp. and Thales. A year ago, Soteria was named the preferred bidder for a contract with the potential to approach $10 billion to take over the search-and-rescue helicopter operations of Great Britain. The country’s Ministry of Defense currently runs those operations using aging Sikorsky Sea King helicopters; through Soteria, Sikorsky would provide S-92 helicopters.
The company recently shipped two S-92 helicopters to Wood Dale, Ill.-based AAR, which is using them for utility airlift duties in Afghanistan where AAR is a military contractor.
The Financial Times reported that the Ministry of Defense may consider scrapping the original Soteria agreement and putting the privatization back out to bid, and that even if it moves ahead, the withdrawal of RBS as the consortium’s equity partner could be fatal for the Soteria bid.
The report did not specify how the cancellation of the current agreement would impact Soteria consortium members in any future bidding process

[Ian Corrigible]

"The Canadians, they want these aircraft. We’ve done a lot to make sure the [S-92] is the best search-and-rescue helicopter out there."

Eh? Is the CH-148 taking over the SAR mission from the CH-149? :confused:

I/C

[Ian Corrigible]

The DND now says (http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1265705.html) that CH-149 Operational Availability rates of below 40% led to the decision to buy (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/135616-eh101-merlin-30.html#post6031973) the mothballed USMC VH-71 Presidential Helicopter fleet for C$164M.

Since its introduction in 2001, the Cormorant fleet has been plagued by parts availability and technical support problems, significantly reducing its mission readiness for both training and operations," said the Sept. 1, 2010, briefing, obtained by The Canadian Press under access to information.

The Defence Department did not answer questions about the Cormorant’s service record and is now refusing to conduct any interviews about the aircraft, especially where it relates to its primary search-and-rescue role.

Still, there are still some optimists out there:

New Democrat defence critic Jack Harris says the U.S. choppers, which include nine airframes and spare parts, should be upgraded to flying condition and added to Canada’s rescue fleet. "They could easily reconfigure these helicopters for search and rescue," he said Wednesday. :ugh:

The same article says that the DND is reportedly now looking at a V-22 buy for long-range SAR.

Meantime delivery of the first six interim spec CH-148s has slipped again, with UTC now saying that only two or three Cyclones will be delivered by the end of this month, as opposed to the previous goal of all six (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/canada-reveals-new-delay-for-interim-ch-148-delivery-357265). Sikorsky appears to have the DND by the balls, since a Canadian government briefing (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/dnd-feared-sikorsky-would-cut-corners-on-helicopter-deal/article2167903/) from last November

...urged both politicians and defence officials to take a deep breath and not get involved in any further debate – or request changes. “It is also paramount that DND not interfere or influence the conduct of activities, as this would provide Sikorsky rationale for excusable delay.”

I/C

[cdnnighthawk]

Check this out: Mark Collins - Cyclone Maritime Chopper Still a Long Way From Prime Time (http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=802)

[1] I’ve followed this forum as a guest for several years and I decided at long last today to throw my oar in. I’ve had and continue to have considerable first hand knowledge of the MH (Cyclone) Project (for quite a few tears now) and have always followed posts to sites like this one on the subject with great interest. Most of what appears often seems to me to be uninformed or, at least, ill-informed opinion.

Your recent post about the aircraft being in storage and your opinion of unfolding troubles are, however, accurate.

The helicopter that Sikorsky “delivered” to Shearwater last year has not been accepted by Canada for a multitude of very serious reasons. It is indeed in storage at Shearwater, remains unflyable, and also remains under Sikorsky title unusable to Canada for any purpose other than as a static display aircraft.

The MH procurement is indeed currently in serious trouble. The Cyclone does not/cannot meet many of the key minimum performance requirements of the original contract and. for these and other reasons, cannot be certified as being airworthy for anything more than daytime, fair weather, over land operations at best…. in other words, unsuitable both for flight training and the operational roles for which it was acquired.

[2]…
Without getting too technical:

The “drivetrain” (engines and main gear box) are inadequate. New engines and a new MGB are currently in development but will not be ready in time for the amended late delivery date of June 2012. There is no guarantee that the engines and MGB under development will meet the original requirement.

Airframe vibration and flutter grossly exceed the contract standard… there is no easy fix for this.

There are a number of outstanding issues related to the airworthiness of the Fly-by-Wire flight control system. Procedural “work-arounds” may end up being the only way to deal with some but there are still matters of robustness and lack of maturity that remain basic safety concerns.

There remain unresolved landing gear and blade fold concerns that impact ship compatibility.

There are more “issues” but those are some of the big ones (and, they are certainly not nits) that need to be overcome on an aircraft that was supposed to have been delivered ready for duty 3.3 years ago.
[3] There are still a few remaining Mission System integration matters to be resolved, but except for one of them potentially, I believe that none can be classified as show stoppers and so I felt that they were not worth highlighting. They are mainly software-related and those troubles are invariably curable over time.

Hi Rathawk - is this an authorized forum for you to release this information? Your profile clearly states that you are a Colonel in the RCAF

[Tcabot113]

CDN

After the CHC gearbox problem (if confirmed to be the "final" fix) that required the aircraft to be boated home, it may be another couple of years before the MH is ready for service. Anybody know what the root cause of the problem was in this incident?

CDN can you imagine how embarrassing it is for Sikorsky to have a commerical pilot get a pilot of the year award due to a mechanical failure.

TC

[cdnnighthawk]

The following CP story appeared in a number of Canadian papers today:

RCAF to get only five test choppers as manufacturer faces $80 million fineBy: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
Posted: 01/26/2012 4:33 PM

Ottawa agreed to pay $5 billion in 2004 for 28 Sikorsky Cyclone helicopters.

OTTAWA - The manufacturer of the air force's new maritime helicopter has told National Defence it will deliver only five test aircraft this year — opening the door to tens of millions of dollars in fines on a project the auditor general has said is late and over budget.

Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. is supposed to deliver a "fully mission capable" version of the CH-148 Cyclone helicopter by June, or face a further $80 million in contract penalties on top of $8 million the federal government has already levied.

Senior defence officials say safety certification of the aircraft is still ongoing and it's highly unlikely the giant U.S. aircraft-maker will meet its target, even though the program is years behind schedule.

"Sikorsky are only committing to deliver five by this year, which will be training aircraft," said a high-level defence source, who spoke to The Canadian Press on the condition of anonymity.

The Cyclones are the highly touted replacement for the CH-124 Sea Kings, which will mark a milestone 50 years in service in 2013.

Originally, the company was supposed to deliver its first chopper in 2008 and have the whole fleet of 28 on the flight line by end of last year. When it became evident a few years ago that schedule wasn't going to be met, the Harper government worked out a deal with the Stratford, Conn.-based corporation to provide a handful of scaled-down aircraft, which would be retrofitted later.

The so-called interim helicopters, which are minus combat systems, were supposed to allow crews to train. But only one helicopter was delivered last year and it arrived late, prompting the government to impose an $8 million fine.

Sikorsky has still not completed full certification of the training aircraft, although it is expected to happen sometime this year. But that's a long way from delivering a "fully capable (maritime helicopter), with all its mission software," which is what the contract stipulates.

When originally proposed 12 years ago, the cost was expected to be $2.8 billion, but that has ballooned to an estimated $5.7 billion, according to a 2010 report by former auditor general Sheila Fraser.

She criticized the Cyclone purchase as well as the plan to buy 15 CH-147-F helicopters, saying Defence turned what was supposed to be off-the-shelf purchases into a customization nightmares.

New Democrats have slammed the Harper government for apparently not collecting the initial $8 million fine.

But senior defence officials said that penalty and the anticipated additional $80 million will be deducted from future payments the federal government will make for maintenance on the helicopter fleet.

"The $8 million comes out of reduced payments and in-service support over time, which is to our advantage," said the senior official.

"If you beat them up now, you disincentive the company from giving you completed aircraft. If you take it out of in-service support costs, it's easier for them to manage and it lowers our operating costs."

A spokesman for Sikorsky, Paul Jackson, declined to say anything about either the fines — or the delivery status.

"My only comment is that we do not comment on customer contractual matters," he said.

The repeated delays in the program has caused budget pain for Defence.

The department was forced last year to hand back $250 million in unspent funds related to the Cyclones. The cash had been authorized in previous budgets to pay for the aircraft that still haven't been delivered.

Defence sources confirmed that cash has been lost to the military and it will have to make up for it some other way in the future.

It is possible that the shortfall could be made up in the estimated $1 billion contingency fund associated with the program, but officials say that remains to be seen.

"It's not a question of money," said the official. "It's a question of schedule."

[Tcabot113]

Maybe SASLESS or John Dixson can correct my math. At 5.7 Billion for 28 aircraft my simple brain says they are now $200 million a piece! Man that is 3 combat capable V-22's each and it still does not have a viable transmission. Why isn't Sikorsky absorbing the $3B overrun?

TC

[JohnDixson]

TC, if the unit price was that high, I'd guess that UTX might be priced higher than $77 bucks!

From my readings re the MHP contract data, I think that big number is the 20 year program cost number, which includes a lot more than just the initial purchase price per machine.

That said, the contractual fine subject is serious business for SA, and on the other side, one can't miss the fact that the Canadian Gov't is taking severe criticism for their management of the program.

Like most things in life the final truth is likely a blend of both sides of the question and perhaps some decisions that one/both might do differently in hindsight.

Lost in the media/political treatment of the problem is any informed discussion about the hard facts behind the present situation. At the moment neither SA nor the Canadian Gov't appear desirous of washing laundry in public.

Thanks,
John Dixson

[cdnnighthawk]

In the USA, its mandatory for publicly traded companies/corporations to hang their laundry outside at least once per year. Watch for the next UTC SEC annual submission regarding the Cdn MH-92. I believe that you will find in it that Sikorsky is holding in excess of US$800 million in unplanned MH-92 NRE costs on their books as "inventory" ... an "asset" that they will go on to assure their shareholders they plan to recover once Cyclone deliveries commence. The UTC SEC report for CY 2011 will be made public not later than 10 Feb 2012. Watch for it. This appears to me to be a big catastrophe waiting to be discovered.

The $5 billion figure referred to ncludes 16 years of Cyclone ISS. The actual acquisition costs associated with the 28 aircraft Cyclone procurement now well exceed $2 billion of that figure.

What a fiasco.

[JohnDixson]

Cdnnighthawk,

If you know there is a non-recurring engineering ( that's what you meant by NRE, correct? ) cost overrun of $800M, and you are publishing it in a public forum, then a lot of other people know that as well.

They say, " Never say Never in Aviation ", but if that were the case it would surprise me ( I mean, really surprise me ) that personnel changes have not been made at SA.

Another question that suggests itself is how SA would recover $800M on 28 production aircraft. Not 100% certain, but that's not a cost plus contract as I recall, so it's not obvious to me how SA gets back that kind of money.

Is it possible that there is an extra zero in the number you quoted and the NRE overrun is $80M ?

Thanks,
John Dixson

[Corax]

Heard that Sikorsky is poised to just "walk away" from Cdn Cyclone project in its entirety. Pay their fines and declare the whole thing a bust.

Anyone?

[Corax]

"The Canadians, they want these aircraft. We’ve done a lot to make sure the [S-92] is the best search-and-rescue helicopter out there."

That is a misguided quote, the CH 148 Cyclone is very much a frigate born maritime helicopter and not at all intended to conduct dedicated SAR in Canada. It must however be capable to perform SAR duties as a secondary role to it's Naval warfare role.

[cdnnighthawk]

What you have heard sounds to me like a fabricated rumour that has been cast out for no other purpose than a fishing expedition for comment.

I take the bait... my comment:
Sikorsky and Canada are certainly not pleased with each other over the terms and performance of the current MHP contracts. I don't' believe that anyone can possibly deny that.

What remains to be seen is whether Canada will accept junk for the currently (and oft amended upwards price) for the Cyclone or will Canada call the hands dealt. Only in the event of the latter will Sikorsky fold in my view.

The most likely outcome (my view) is that we (the RCN & RCAF) will end up being stuck with a pig in a poke and we will learn to live with it.

I sincerely hope that the Canadian MHP lesson does not get repeated elsewhere (enemies excepted).:ugh:

[cdnnighthawk]

JD...
I no longer have the link but I assure you that the following are accurate excerpts from the UTC SEC submission filed one year ago:

Page 6-7

“….Sikorsky is also developing ... the CH-148 derivative of the H-92 helicopter, a military variant of the S-92 helicopter, for the Canadian government. The latter is being developed under a fixed-price contract that provides for the development, production, and 24-year logistical support of 28 helicopters. This is the largest and most expansive fixed-price development contract in Sikorsky’s history. As previously disclosed, in June 2010 Sikorsky and the Canadian government signed contract amendments that revised the delivery schedule and contract specifications, and established the requirements for the first six interim aircraft deliveries to enable initial operational test and evaluation activities prior to the scheduled delivery of final configuration helicopters starting in June 2012. The amendments also included modifications to the liquidated damages schedule, readjustment of payment schedules, resolution of open disputes and other program enhancements. Delivery of the interim configuration helicopters was scheduled to commence in November 2010, but is now expected to begin in the first quarter of 2011.”

Page 15:

“…Sikorsky is also developing the CH-53K next generation heavy lift helicopter for the U.S. Marine Corps and the CH-148 derivative of the H-92 helicopter, a military variant of the S-92 helicopter, for the Canadian government. The latter is being developed under an approximately $3 billion firm, fixed-price contract that provides for the development, production, and 24-year logistical support of 28 helicopters. This is the largest and most expansive fixed-price development contract in Sikorsky’s history. As previously disclosed, in June 2010 Sikorsky and the Canadian government signed contract amendments that revised the delivery schedule and contract specifications, and established the requirements for the first six interim aircraft deliveries to enable initial operational test and evaluation activities prior to the scheduled delivery of final configuration helicopters starting in June 2012. The amendments also included modifications to the liquidated damages schedule, readjustment of payment schedules, resolution of open disputes and other program enhancements. Delivery of the interim configuration helicopters was scheduled to commence in November 2010, but is now expected to begin in the first quarter of 2011.”


Page 38:

“…As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, inventory also includes capitalized contract development costs of $804 million and $862 million, respectively, related to certain aerospace programs. These capitalized costs will be liquidated as production units are delivered to the customer. The capitalized contract development costs within inventory principally relate to capitalized costs on Sikorsky’s CH-148 contract with the Canadian government. The CH-148 is a derivative of the H-92, a military variant of the S-92.”

[JohnDixson]

Cdnnighthawk,

In your earlier post you referred to "unplanned" NRE costs, whereas this last post refers to capitalized contract development costs. When you wrote "unplanned", I took your meaning to be just that, i.e., an overrun above planned ( and capitalized ) development costs.

If I am interpreting your last post correctly, you take the position that all of the capitalized development costs referred to in the submit tall are unplanned ( an overrun ). All I posit is that if that were true, my expectation would be some immediate and decisive executive action, and to recover that egregious an overrun on 28 machines would be looking at the world in rather rose colored glasses. As I said, though, "Never say never in aviation " and it's hard looking at that program from the outside to know all of the details.

Thanks,
John Dixson

[Corax]

S92 Legacy of Heroes tour:

So I've been reading all the media coverage of the S92 Legacy of Heroes tour and can't help but wonder if they really believe that the S92 is such a great machine for our military heroes as depicted on the camouflage paint scheme of the aircraft. As a Canadian and former Sea King driver I can't help but think why would they not just put that effort and those funds in completing their commitment to the CH148 Cyclone and damn well deliver on their agreement.

In one of the articles the president of Sikorky presented a strong picture of the company’s succesful history and recent achievements. While I do not begrudge those achievements I find it appaling how Sikorsky has handled the contract to provide Canada’s brave men and women with the agreed upon CH148 Cyclone. Their handling of this contract is nothing short of shameful particularly for a military that has been flying their product since 1963 in the CH124 Sea King.

It will be 50 years for the Sea King in 2013 and sadly Sikorsky will barely be starting their deliveries of a watered down version of the product they contractually agreed to deliver. It is an affront to Canadians and I believe that Sikorsky is better than that. They are obviously aware of their failing since I have yet to see Canada on their S92 Legacy of Heroes tour. I believe they should man up and make amends to our government and our military.

I’m a fan of Sikosky helicopters but this contract is a true black mark on this proud company. Sadly as far as the Canadian military is concerned this should be titled the Legacy of Apathy tour.

Fire away Nick.

[cdnnighthawk]

[It will be 50 years for the Sea King in 2013 and sadly Sikorsky will barely be starting their deliveries of a watered down version of the product they contractually agreed to deliver. It is an affront to Canadians and I believe that Sikorsky is better than that.]

The latest from Sikorsky is that they hope to deliver two interim Cyclones to Shearwater this month (April 2012) and a further two by the beginning of June. These aircraft are expected to remain under Sikorsky title (i.e. not accepted yet by the customer) for several months. Sikorsky Cyclone #806 that has been hangared at Shearwater since May 2011 is being returned to Sikorsky facilities in the US. The four interim aircraft to be delivered soon will be used for the first serial of aircrew and groundcrew initial cadre training (ICT) but it is anticipated that they will still have significant operating restrictions. Bear in mind that this is unofficial forward-looking information at this time and is subject to change (eg. further delay).

[Rotorhead124]

It has been reported that those 'interim' (non-compliant) MH-92As will be restricted.

NO - IFR :uhoh:
NO - NIGHT :uhoh:
NO - OVERWATER FLIGHT :uhoh:

Not much of a capability.. :sad:

[Torcher]

Not that it is any excuse for the Sikorsky, but as an amusing anecdote:
As far as I can remember, the same restrictions applied to the RN Merlin in the early days+No flying in rain, no landing on soft ground, no.... And the list went on and on.


Torcher

[rjsquirrel]

The Canadian program seems to point out the difficulties that are being experienced by many programs world-wide, a product not just of the mistakes made by the company that produces the product, but also the mistakes made by the national military people who run their side of the project. If someone knows of a successful similar development project, post it here, please!

The development of a new system is often a delicate dance between the folks who specify and the folks who design and develop the solution to that spec, sort of like a new kitchen for a house, or a swimming pool. Bad customers make failed projects, and blaming only the contractor is often simplistic. No country seems to buy off the shelf, that all want to design a new system, and ask for one tailored to their preceived needs. Development is difficult because the folks who write the spec are also the folks who determine if the aircraft is in compliance, so that items that are poorly communicated often need redesign since the "judge" is also the "Jury" and the "Executioner".

When a junior officer (in charge of approval of a part of the system)decides the spec means something far beyond the scope of the previous junior officer who approved the original design (a near certainty since many officers rotate through assignments every 2 or 3 years), the project quickly collapses into a scramble to redesign and re-test. Since many of the project team members on the military side have no professional training, the comedy can be devastating, and can look like a Fawlty Towers episode.

I recall a country program where the manufacturer actually stole the partially completed aircraft at midnight from the in-country completion partner, and spiritited tham back to the home country for completion!

Most of the problems in the Canadian program seem to be on the system side, a highly specialized, separate program within the program, developed by Canadians for the project, and highly dependant on that collaboration between military customers and civilian developers. Rumor says that is the messiest part of this whole thing, and the most customized part, one that could not be off the shelf, since the military insisted it must be custom, specifically designed for the Cyclone.

[espresso drinker]

Torcher - For sure the the AW101 (EH101/Merlin/Cormorant) has not been without it's problems, but at least it has 30 minute run dry time and not certified through some dodgy loop hole. :}

At the time of the order for the Cyclone the Canadians could have had an 'off the shelf' aircraft with proven maritime/ASW capability and commonality with another in-service aircraft. :ugh:

Pretty much every aircraft/system will go through the 'bath tub reliability curve' (Bathtub curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve)) and experience initial (excuse the term) 'infant mortality failures'. For that reason I'd never buy the first model/version of a new car, I'd wait for the 'mark II' version and hopefully the manufacturer has had the opportunity to iron out all/some of the problems with the first model.

Maybe this would be a good rule for the Canadian government to follow but I guess it's too late for the Cyclone (unless they ditch it as Sikorsky have obviously failed to fulfil their contractural obligations and buy something that's proven - and no not necessarily the AW101).:E

[[email protected]]

When a junior officer (in charge of approval of a part of the system)decides the spec means something far beyond the scope of the previous junior officer who approved the original design (a near certainty since many officers rotate through assignments every 2 or 3 years), the project quickly collapses into a scramble to redesign and re-test. Since many of the project team members on the military side have no professional training, the comedy can be devastating, and can look like a Fawlty Towers episode.

RJSquirrel - you have MoD procurement in a nutshell there!

[Torcher]

Espresso

From personal experience, formerly involved in government procurement processes, I believe the only way to go (espescially for smaller nations) is COTS.

Let the manufacturers present their goods from a fairly broad and simple set of requirements, then decide what best fills your requirements vs cost, and there you have it (Make sure you have a fire proof contract, including OEM logistic support)

Examples of success:
Sweden, 15 Blackhawks off the current production line, including training and support.
Norway, C130J, off the current production line. In service within 18 months of ordering.

Examples of failure:
Norway, New SAR Helicopters. Procurement program initiated in 2007, and still has not produced anything other than papers and unrealistic requirements. Latest in service forecast 2020. Original Seaking replacement was scheduled for 2008.
Norwegian frigates (similar process), supposed to be a state of the art multi-purpose weapon system.
Turned out to be a weaponless, out of date ASW frigate. Mostly due to the time it took from project start until it was finished, but also due to the "We must specify all aspects of the procurement ourself, and under no circumstances buy anything already available" mentality:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Torcher

[SARBlade]

The Canadian program seems to point out the difficulties that are being experienced by many programs world-wide, a product not just of the mistakes made by the company that produces the product, but also the mistakes made by the national military people who run their side of the project.

Having been involved with the Cormorant procurement in Canada, one of the most difficult hurdles is that the project was managed by a civilian bureaucrat, with a government office making sure that the Canadian worker was going to get their fare share of work for the money spent. Mistakes by the military people is often the easy finger to point and I for one don't like it. The military has its flaws, but when it comes to a requirement, they meticulously look at every option and plan accordingly. Money does hinder the procurement in that everyone wants a piece of it, including politicians! Really, it comes down to an RFP being so watered down to meet what industry can provide with the most spin-offs being the overriding issue, not performance. When it comes to performance, the military will get a machine and work within those limitation, and fix later. Joe VCR working at GE will still be employed. I'm not against this but it is what it is. Keeps people employed, not necessary give the military the perfect helicopter.

[espresso drinker]

Torcher, SARBlad & Crab. I agree with all your comments. Why is it noboby ever seems to learn the lessons of previous poor military procurement programmes?

Unfortunately for government military programmes politics nearly always come it to it, as well as often changing requirements as different threats come and go during the often protracted procurement process.

It is much easier if you're buying something 'off the shelf' like the examples cited by Tourcher. I guess one of the problems now is that new military aircraft programmes are so expensive and complex they have to be funded by one or more 'launch' customers and it is a long and arduous process before you get a sufficiently 'mature' aircraft.

Wherever possible manufacturers need 'off line' developement to hopfully perfect the design as much as possible before offering it for sale. But like I said unless a government comes to these manufacturers with big wad of cash they can't afford to do this.

As for the Cyclone, I had heard (purely rumour) that Sikorsky had hoped/expected to win the previous US presidential contratct and would have used this wad of cash do to a lot of the 'militarizing' of the aircraft. Unfortunately they didn't and had to start from scratch with a 100% civil aircraft for the Canadians. Throw in there all the problems issues with the gearbox, and those that other contributors (e.g. squirrel) have mentioned, and there you have it.

BUT, if you always buy existing aircraft 'off the shelf' then the industry is never going to move forward and delevop new aircraft.

[Shawn Coyle]

espresso drinker:
I disagree with your last statement about developing new aircraft.
Absent a hot shooting war where you need a big improvement over the enemy, there is little that will drive a military to ask for something better. Look at Sikorsky's very bold move to develop a larger version of the co-axial design. The President of Sikorsky said that if they waited for the military to put out an RFP, it would be something that might be 10% better than the Blackhawk, where their machine is significantly better.
More to the point the civil world does have a lot of innovation and development - the competition is pretty fierce, and none of the major manufacturers had a military order for what is now the AW-139, the Bell 525 and the original S-92. Those new aircraft can perform quite a few of the non-shooting military missions quite well, and were all developed without a military requirement.

[SansAnhedral]

The COTS dogma is an abject failure, when attempting to use a civilian-designed and certified helicopter.

In each and every case, requirement creep catches up to the machine. This causes schedule delays, performance hits, and budget overruns.

S92 - CH148 : 4 years late now, millions over budget, and still no completed IDMGB or mission system package

VH71 - AW101 : Billions over budget thanks to insane requirement changes midway though the design process

CSARX, VXX : All axed due to inflated costs in the face of progressively tighter budgets

EC145 - UH72 : One of the few touted "success stories", but this is because this machine was not very militarized and its mission is designed almost exactly the same as its civil counterpart (quite a rarity). That said, even this helicopter had some fairly major issues with its new avionics overheating, which required the addition of some fairly ungainly cooling equipment cutting into its capacity.

The idea that taking a COTS machine and "cheaply" obtaining your military helicopter is deeply flawed and this has been proven over recent history. The customer always realizes (after the contract award) just how much of a compromise it is to be constrained to the COTS product performance, and then tries to redesign it to such an extent that the process breaks down.

[rjsquirrel]

sans,
Frankly, your point proves the opposite - NONE of those programs was even remotely COTS, and they wandered in the never-never land of requirements gone bad.

Example: The Canadian requirement was supposed to have described in great length what the control knobs for the radar would be like - diameter, scaling marks, etc. Somebody sent lots of time making their requirements precise. Unfortunately, modern radars don't have knobs.

[SansAnhedral]

Every one of those programs were designated from the outset to use a COTS airframe to save money from developing anything new. That was my whole point.

[cdnnighthawk]

Just a reminder for everyone regarding the COTS/OTS discussion...

The Cyclone was proposed and bought as a "largely non-developmental aircraft". In fact, the rules of the MH competition required that the aircraft selected be "off-the-shelf to the maximum extent possible". BTW, since being announced as the winner if the competition, there has been no "spec creep" to speak of, but UTC has gone so far as to claim repeatedly in its SEC submissions since 2008 that the Cyclone is the most expansive development program in Sikorsky's history as an excuse for the delays.

The subject of S-92 development requirements was raised at the press conference in Ottawa on 23 July 2004 following the contract announcement... excerpt copied here:

"Question: Christian B, Toronto Star. Just wondering what assurance has Sikorsky given you in terms of the fact that this helicopter is not used in any other military and conversion from a civilian version which obviously has some issues. I’m just wondering, you know, Cormorant has claimed this will, you know, push it back by years.

Alan Williams: First of all the company we have selected, Sikorsky International, is one of the world renowned helicopter manufacturers. They’ve got a history of competence and capability in delivery that ranks with anybody and secondly, this model is on the production line albeit in a commercial mode but they have already sold a fair number and have produced a number. Thirdly, any helicopter that we would have acquired would have to be tailored to meet our needs. The frame is one that’s in production. The mission systems that will be integrated by General Dynamics Canada are all commercial off the shelf products. The challenge of course is the sophisticated integration. So we have absolutely no doubt that it can be done. The bid produced by Sikorsky reflects its rigorous planning of activities. They’ve submitted to us a plan that had 24 pages, 4,912 activities, each one constant, each one scheduled with required resources. We’ll be monitoring that very very closely to make sure they deliver on what they said but there’s absolutely no doubt in our minds that they have shown us that they have the capability to deliver the plan and the product that we need."

[heli1]

Mid May and the two interim still not delivered?

[BigMac_S61]

A Cyclone flew in yesterday afternoon, so there is now one taking up some hangar space

[pasptoo]

I hope she is not just taking up space, get her airborne before the fog rolls in !

Enjoy the new beast, she is a quantum leap forward.

Pas

[heli1]

Big mac..Is that in additiion to the one that has been there since last year or the same aircraft doing a circuit !!

[BigMac_S61]

She's a new bird, the one we had sitting here for the last year went back to Sikorsky a couple months ago.

Looks like she might be the first of the two birds we are suppose to get this summer to start some training on.

[Rotorhead124]

Better buy some good ear-plugs! http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/362452-hearing-problems-flying-s92.html Best of luck.

[cdnnighthawk]

There definitely has been some limited Cyclone flying going on at Shearwater this past week; however, there seems to be a cloud of secrecy about it. Even my normally talkative Sikorsky sources decline to say anything about it. One of them did say that it has been conducting some "flight tests" aircraft and will not be being used for training. The aircraft appears to have a long nose boom fitted. Do you know what the tail number is?

[BigMac_S61]

I never got a chance to see what the tail number was....have just heard/seen it flying around a bit, but other then that no rumours about it as of yet

[BigMac_S61]

UFO Flying Over Shearwater? No It’s A Cyclone Helicopter | Ottawa Citizen (http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/05/16/ufo-flying-over-shearwater-no-its-a-cyclone-helicopter/)

It might as well be a UFO….or a Black Project aircraft the way the government, DND and Sikorsky refuses to discuss what is happening with the procurement. The latest claim is that more than a couple of Cyclones will be delivered to the Canadian Forces this summer. Stand by for that. But for now, here are some long-shot photos of a/the Cyclone flying over Shearwater today, taken by Defence Watch reader Paul Blaauw. Many thanks for the photos Paul.

http://postmediaottawacitizen.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/dsc_2037cont1.jpg

[cdnnighthawk]

The mystery continues. The aircraft in your photo does not have a nose boom; the one spotted on the ramp (at a long distance from across the field) appeared to have a boom (maybe it was a tow bar attached?). A zoom up on your photo reveals some orange (i.e. potentially instrumented test gear or external test markings for photo tracking and analysis). Others who have seen it in flight here last week said that it stayed over land with the landing gear was always down and one reported seeing orange on it as well.

[Rotorhead124]

Heard it was 'sent back' or 'went back' to wence it came and isn't in CYAW anymore. Couldn't have been a delivery.

[cdnnighthawk]

You are correct. The Cyclone seen turning on the ramp and later flying near Shearwater last week was Cyclone 806. This is the aircraft that was "delivered" to Shearwater in May 2011 and which has been parked there ever since. Last week it was conducting post-maintenance flight testing by Sikorsky test pilots following the installation of modified servo actuator valves which failed during an earlier return-to-Sikorsky flight attempt in April. The aircraft was recently safely returned to Sikorsky facilities in the US. There are currently no Cyclones in Canada.

[ILOVESMURFS]

Rotorhead 124,

How did you hear it. Thought you wear deaf?


Can you help answer question on other thread. Your silence on the S&R experience and exposoure is making many of us wonder if this is true!


Smurfet is still the hottest chick!

[Tcabot113]

Was it returning for Jeff Pino's (Pres of Sikorsky) retirement or did it cause his retirement?

TC

[cdnnighthawk]

You've raised an interesting question. When Jeff Pino replaced Stephen Finger at Sikorsky in 2006, there was much pudding made by UTC about the latter's outstanding performance as Sikorsky's chief steward and also, that Stephen would be taking over the top job at P&W (UTC's plum). I've seen nothing of the same for Jeff... simply that he is retiring from his position as Sikorsky President on 1 July. Jeff Pino, at 57, is indeed a few years shy of the normal CEO retirement age in the US.

[heli1]

That and the delays with the S-76D and the poor performance of the division last year ? UTC has never been a benevolent instititution..

[SansAnhedral]

You should have heard Pino at this year's AHS CEO presentation....talk about a guy clearly on the way out taking his potshots!

I met him in person once before back in 2008 and he seemed nice enough back then.

[Jack Carson]

I hate to interject common sense in to the equation, but here goes. Sikorsky over the years has certified and delivered many aircraft with very good certified auto pilots. Some of these were developed in cahoots with quality venders. Along comes Canada, and Sikorsky promises a better mouse trap, in terms of a fly by wire system, that will be the cats pajamas of all systems. This comes on the tails of a US Army Blackhawk program that failed to deliver a quality product. Customers around the world are presently flying certified IFR S-92 aircraft with very capable systems. If you have a product that is already 90% of capable what are you willing to pay for in terms of money and delays for the remaining 10%? Are the additional capabilities actually required and beneficial to the program? :8

[Tcabot113]

JC

I am sure the Canadians would accept the ships at the standard 92 IFR price. However, at $200M apiece it should work as advertised. Once accepted there is no going back, and all fixes to meet the original requirements will just cost more.

TC

[cdnnighthawk]

Decades-long mission to replace Sea Kings hits another snag

DANIEL LEBLANC
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Jul. 02 2012, 12:01 AM EDT
Last updated Sunday, Jul. 01 2012, 11:33 PM EDT

Sikorsky International Operations Inc. was supposed to deliver the first of 28 state-of-the-art CH-148 Cyclones in June, after the Harper government agreed in late 2008 to extend the deadline on the $5.7-billion contract by 43 months.

In the latest in a string of missteps in military procurements, Sikorsky is pushing back on the delivery, with still no official date being offered for the completion of the contract.

“Sikorsky has yet to start delivering the Cyclones,” said Sébastien Bois, a spokesman for Public Works and Government Services Canada.

The Sea Kings, which are nearly 50 years old, have been famously unreliable in recent years as they were placed aboard Canadian frigates on overseas missions to places such as the Persian Gulf. The Cyclones are expected to be more effective in all types of challenging environments, with high-tech radars and sensors to patrol the world’s turbulent seas.

The purchase is the latest in a series of problematic procurements by the Canadian Forces, such as the purchase of underperforming second-hand submarines and delays in acquiring search-and-rescue planes. The biggest controversy for the Harper government to date surrounds the mishandling of the sole-sourced $15-billion deal for F-35 fighter jets, which was the subject of a hard-hitting report by the Auditor-General this spring.

Sikorsky signed a contract with the previous Liberal government in 2004 to start delivering the fleet of Cyclones in 2008. The Harper government agreed in late 2008 to extend the deadline for the delivery of helicopters to June of this year, citing technological hurdles faced by the company.

The contract extension included a funding increase of $117-million as Ottawa said it would receive more powerful choppers than initially planned.

Sikorsky and the federal government are remaining vague about the problems with the Cyclone program, but it is clear the company is struggling to obtain the “airworthiness certification” that is mandatory for the helicopters to fly off on military missions. In addition, the company is still working to ensure the helicopters have the necessary engine power to meet the government’s mandatory endurance requirements.

Ottawa has been trying to replace its Sea Kings with new ship-borne helicopters since the mid-1980s. The Mulroney government had decided to purchase EH-101 helicopters for the job, but in one of his first acts in office, former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien scrapped the contract in 1993. The cancellation cost taxpayers $478-million.

After a series of delays, the Liberals announced in 2004 that Sikorsky had won the competition to replace the Sea Kings, which the Canadian Forces had acquired between 1963 and 1969. Problems with the Sea Kings have abounded over the years, including crashes and routine groundings on military missions.

The opposition said the replacement program has become a national embarrassment.
“The whole program has been a disaster,” said NDP MP Jack Harris, who called on the government to slap maximum penalties against the company.

So far, Ottawa has imposed $8-million in liquidated damages against Sikorsky, and is threatening to run up the bill.

Failure to deliver fully compliant Maritime Helicopters will be met with significant additional charges to the company,” said Michelle Bakos, a spokeswoman for Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose.

The company is late on two fronts. In addition to delays in delivering the final version of the Cyclone helicopter, Sikorsky is also well behind on its promise to deliver an “interim” version of the Cyclone to be used for training.

According to the 2008 contract extension, the interim helicopters were supposed to meet watered-down requirements, and were scheduled to arrive at the Canadian Forces base in Shearwater, N.S., in November, 2010. However, that portion of the contract has also not been fulfilled, causing months of delays in the training of technicians and aircrews.

“Critical work remains to be done before the Government of Canada can take official delivery and assume ownership of the interim helicopters,” Mr. Bois said. “Sikorsky leadership has reconfirmed their commitment to deliver helicopters at no additional cost to the Crown.”

Public Works and National Defence are stating that they expect the delivery of the interim helicopters to occur “later this year.” This suggests the delivery of the fully compliant helicopters – initially scheduled for 2008 – will not happen until 2013.

The Auditor-General investigated the Cyclone purchase in 2010, and concluded that National Defence underestimated the complexity of developing the military helicopters, which were wrongly defined as being an “off-the-shelf” purchase.
“In our opinion, National Defence did not adequately assess the developmental nature of this aircraft, and the risks related to cost and the complexity of the required technical modifications were underestimated,” the Auditor-General said.

[SansAnhedral]

Failure to deliver fully compliant Maritime Helicopters will be met with significant additional charges to the company,” said Michelle Bakos, a spokeswoman for Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose.

Talk about a snake with no fangs, how many times has this empty threat been issues over the last (late) 4 years?

This is pretty incredible, what ever happened to the $100,000 per-day late fee?

[cdnnighthawk]

I have no idea from where the concept of "significant additional charges" for lateness comes. The original contract called for a $100,000 per day holdback for anything up to a max of 360 days late, after which there would be no further penalty (ie a max penalty of $36 million for late delivery). The Feb 2009 contract amendment (always referred to in the media as the "2008 contract announcement" or something to that effect) capped the late delivery penalty at $8 million. If it had indeed been $100K per day (no cap), Sikorsky would no longer be in business and Canada would still not have any new helicopters. Sikorsky is still in business. Canada's Navy still flies Sea Pigs.

[cdnnighthawk]

This story about newly identified delivery delay fallout came out today... I wonder if the German Navy is still wanting to join this party:

Sea King substitute’s delay means a scramble on the landing deck

DANIEL LEBLANC
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Jul. 02 2012


As the Canadian Forces were getting ready to welcome their long-awaited fleet of new maritime helicopters, they modified the landing deck on HMCS Regina.
The move was essential to ensure the new CH-148 Cyclones could safely land on the frigate in turbulent waters, as the state-of-the-art aircraft have a different landing configuration than the nearly 50-year-old Sea Kings that have been flown off the vessel for decades.


However, a new round of delays in the delivery of the Sikorsky aircraft has forced the military to go back on the modifications to HMCS Regina. Turning back the clock, the military has had to get the vessel ready to again welcome old Sea Kings on its deck, government sources said Monday.


The situation illustrates the cost and complexity to the government of the multiple delays in the delivery of the fleet of 28 Cyclones, purchased in 2004 at a cost of $5.7-billion.


The bungled procurement has reinforced the perception in Ottawa that the military acquisition process is flawed and might need to be reorganized under the single umbrella of a specialized agency. Under the current system, major military purchases are handled jointly by the departments of National Defence and Public Works.


The Sikorsky purchase is the second major procurement headache afflicting the Harper government, which has been overhauling the process to acquire a new fleet of fighter jets to replace its CF-18s after a damning report by the Auditor-General earlier this year.


Plans to replace the Sea Kings go back to the mid-1980s. After ripping up a contract for new choppers in 1993, the Liberal government bought the Cyclones in 2004, stating the aircraft would start arriving at CFB Shearwater in 2008. At the time, the Liberals boasted the contract with Sikorsky International Operations Inc. marked “the end of an extremely rigorous procurement process.”


However, the company faced a variety of technological hurdles that delayed the development and production of the new aircraft, and the Harper government was forced to offer a 43-month reprieve on the delivery of the helicopters in 2008.


Under a deal signed by the Conservative government at the time, Sikorsky agreed to start delivering fully compliant helicopters by June 30 of this year. That deadline has come and gone, however, and neither Sikorksy nor Public Works could offer a new delivery schedule on Monday.


The delay has forced the HMCS Regina to re-modify its landing deck.
“In preparation for the receipt of new maritime helicopters, the deck of the HMCS Regina was converted to accept a Cyclone,” said an official at National Defence.
“Given Sikorsky’s recent delay to the delivery date set out in the contract, modifications were necessary to ensure the HMCS Regina would be deployable.”


The company has also failed to deliver “interim” helicopters for training of Canadian aircrews and technicians. The interim helicopters, which only had to meet watered-down performance requirements, were due to be delivered to the Canadian Forces in 2010.


Government and military sources said there is much frustration at the delays, as highlighted by the series of modifications that had to be made on HMCS Regina.



Over time, all of the Canadian Forces frigates will have to be modified to welcome the Cyclones, although it is unclear when that will happen.


So far, Ottawa has imposed $8-million in liquidated damages against Sikorsky, and is threatening to run up the bill.


“Failure to deliver fully compliant Maritime Helicopters will be met with significant additional charges to the company,” said Michelle Bakos, a spokeswoman for Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose.


Sikorsky and the federal government are remaining vague about the problems with the Cyclone program, but it is clear the company is struggling to obtain the “airworthiness certification” that is mandatory for the helicopters to fly on military missions. In addition, the company is still working to ensure the helicopters have the necessary engine power to meet the government’s mandatory endurance requirements.


The Auditor-General investigated the Cyclone purchase in 2010, and concluded that National Defence underestimated the complexity of developing the military helicopters, which were wrongly defined as being an “off-the-shelf” purchase.


The Sea Kings, bought in the 1960s, have been famously unreliable in recent years as they were placed aboard Canadian frigates on overseas missions to places such as the Persian Gulf. The Cyclones are expected to be more effective in all types of challenging environments, with high-tech radars and sensors to patrol the world’s turbulent seas.

[heli1]

CDNNIGHTHAWK. I guess that Ottowa has grounds to cancel the order now or at least sue for breach of contract after the latest delays.That might be why they can claim additional fines.After all the cost of derigging Regina must have cost at least a million dollars.As for Germany buying the aircraft that has doubtless disappeared out the window thanks to the Euro crisis and a surplus of NH90 airframes from deferred orders.

[espresso drinker]

I'm sure that all the Canadians want is a decent machine to replace their Sea Kings. :{

I guess that AW would be happy to sell you some 101's, but that would be losing face in the extreme and they'd have another wait. How about the Seahawk as a compromise?

Canada could always try and out bid New Zealand on the SH-2G Super Seasprites that are still kicking around in a hanger somewhere after the cancelled Aus order. :E

[cdnnighthawk]

Halifax Herald ~ 4 July 2012

Tories to hit Sikorsky for delay

July 3, 2012 - 8:07pm By PAUL McLEOD Ottawa Bureau (http://thechronicleherald.ca/author/paul-mcleod-ottawa-bureau-1)

The government says it will level “significant” fines against Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. for missing yet another deadline to deliver CH-148 Cyclone helicopters.
But it’s not saying whether it will demand the entire $80.6 million it can charge Sikorsky for breach of contract.


Meanwhile, the delays continue to handcuff the Canadian Forces.
The government retrofitted HMCS Regina and HMCS Montreal, two Halifax-class frigates, in order to allow the Cyclones to land on and take off from the ships’ flight deck.


But when it became clear the choppers would not arrive on time, the Forces had to spend more money to reverse the HMCS Regina retrofit so it could once again handle Sea Kings.


A Defence Department spokesman estimated the cost of the retrofits to be about $600,000 per ship. The Canadian Forces could not confirm that number by deadline Tuesday or provide the cost of reversing the Regina refit.


With work to return its flight deck and hanger to original specifications completed, the Regina was deployed Tuesday to the Arabian Sea as part of Operation Artemis, a Combined Maritime Forces counter-terrorism mission.


The Cyclones and Sea Kings are significantly different vehicles and that would require major changes to the flight deck and the hanger, said Lee Myrhaugen, a retired colonel and former deputy commander of Maritime Air Group.


“It’s extremely frustrating for the navy, for sure,” said Myrhaugen.


“You put all your efforts into making sure that you’re prepared for the new aircraft and when things get delayed, you have to turn around and say, ‘What is all this good planning and activity for?’ ”


The $5.7-billion purchase has become a nightmare for the government. Announced in 2004 by the former Liberal government, Sikorsky was supposed to start delivering the choppers in 2008 and the entire fleet of 28 was supposed to have arrived by now.


Instead the government gave Sikorsky a 43-month extension in exchange for more than $100 million in extra industrial and economic promises from the company. That deadline ran out on June 30 without a single helicopter delivered.


The government has already collected $8 million in fines from Sikorsky and can now charge a further $80.6 million.


The Department of Public Works would not confirm Tuesday if it was charging the full amount, saying it was in talks with the company.


“Failure to deliver fully compliant marine helicopters will be met with significant additional charges,” said Amber Irwin, spokeswoman for Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose.


The government did not set a new target date for receiving the Cyclones, but there are signs it won’t be any time soon.


There are currently no plans to convert any more ships to handle Cyclones, said Chris McCluskey, spokesman for Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino.


There are two Cyclones sitting at CFB Shearwater, but they are not up to specifications and do not count as delivered aircraft.


While the choppers are theoretically flyable, no flight training is currently being done with them. Instead they are being used only for maintenance training.
Sikorsky was supposed to deliver a series of “training” Cyclones with weaker specs than the final product, but those have not yet arrived.


The road to replacing the Sea Kings began in 1992 when the Brian Mulroney government announced they would buy 50 EH-101s at a price of $5.8 billion. The next year, the Jean Chretien government tore up that deal and had to pay a penalty of close to $500 million.


Over the years, the cost of the program has ballooned from a projected $2.8 billion to an estimated $5.7 billion.
([email protected])

[henra]

This story about newly identified delivery delay fallout came out today... I wonder if the German Navy is still wanting to join this party:


That might depend on whome you ask.
In general they seem to be pretty much set on a machine at least as big as the Sea King. As it is planned to go for a single type it has to be capable of all current and planned missions in one single air frame without any setbacks compared to the prdecessors.

And that basically leaves you with only very few options:
Cyclone or the EH-101.
The latter is too big+heavy for the actual and projected ships (not mentioning that it seems to be plagued by generally not overwhelming availability rates with the current users), so either Cyclone or a smaller machine than the predecessor it is.

Looking at the actual situation of the CH-148 I hope they wait at least a bit before fully comitting to that route.
Sorry if that leaves all of the risk with you Canadians but we do have enough other military procurement programs going awry. We are in no particular need for another one...:}

[India Four Two]

But when it became clear the choppers would not arrive on time, the Forces had to spend more money to reverse the HMCS Regina retrofit so it could once again handle Sea Kings.

A Defence Department spokesman estimated the cost of the retrofits to be about $600,000 per ship. The Canadian Forces could not confirm that number by deadline Tuesday or provide the cost of reversing the Regina refit.

With work to return its flight deck and hanger to original specifications completed, the Regina was deployed Tuesday to the Arabian Sea as part of Operation Artemis, a Combined Maritime Forces counter-terrorism mission.


What on earth requires $600,000 to change the deck and hangar to support a different type? I assume for that price it's more than just repainting the H in a different position.

As an aside, I toured HMCS Regina when she came to Saigon a few years ago. I did ask a rather pointed question while standing in the empty hangar "Where's your Sea King?" :E and I got a rather defensive answer "We don't always deploy with them."

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

What on earth requires $600,000 to change the deck and hangar to support a different type?


A large part of the issue will be the beartrap hauldown system, which is Sea King specific. Removing the beartrap in toto would involve significant engineering to the deck. No doubt someone with direct experience will be able to offer more detail.

In a similar vein, while the Cyclone will (eventually?) deliver bring a more modern capability than the Sea King, there's no way the new aircraft will be able to operate in the same deck conditions as the venerable Sea King unless a 'son of beartrap' is developed...not currently part of the design spec I believe? Watching the beartrap/Sea King combo in action (on video rather than live, in my case) is highly impressive!

[Mel Effluent]

TOTD - I can assure you that operating the Sea King using the beartrap is pretty impressive too. As I recall, the limits for operation were 9 degrees of pitch and 30 degrees of roll.:eek:

[cdnnighthawk]

Some more on this story plus some interesting video feed can be found at

New military helicopters may not be ready for 5 years - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/07/04/weston-naval-helicopter-delays.html)

[cdnnighthawk]

TOTD re $600K rework job...

The beartrap and deck handling equipment had to be completely redesigned for the Cyclone. The large steel tail probe bars required by the Sea King at the after end of the flight deck had to be removed (and then reinstalled again in the case of HMCS REGINA). The Sea King's tail guide winch system had to be replaced by a nose guide winch system because, like the Sea King's tail wheel, the Cyclone nose wheel is fully castoring (not steerable) and needs to be kept from rolling during ship roll (this gear had to be reversed in the case of REGINA); a nose wheel tray had to be added (and removed in the case of REGINA) to keep the Cyclone straight when being moved in and out of the hangar because it has to be offset well to port of the hangar centreline in order to fit in the hangar whereas the Sea King rides along the centre deck track; work platforms and other hangar apparatus required for the Sea King that had been removed needed to be reinstalled in REGINA,etc, etc. Bear in mind the $600K figure was undoubtedly an out-of-the-anus estimate. I would not be surprised to learn that the bill was actually more than that.

[SansAnhedral]

the CH-148 uses the RAST system, which I believe required a substantial portion of the retrofit on the frigates.

[RWBooy]

Both aircraft use the RAST system, just a different variation of it. The Sea King is set up for a reverse tricycle gear and the Cyclone works with a newer version based on a standard tricycle gear arrangement. I believe both systems are by what used to be DAF Indal. Cdnnighthawks comments are quite good on the impacts from my memories of the city class development.

Quick edit, at least that's what was planned back then for the new aircraft. Does anyone know if they took up the harpoon deck lock instead?

[SansAnhedral]

Cyclones touch down in Shearwater | Vertical - Helicopter News (http://verticalmag.com/news/articles/21019-cyclones-touch-down-in-shearwater.html)

CYCLONES TOUCH DOWN IN SHEARWATER
Friday July 6th 2012 - by Ken Pole


At the end of June, the Royal Canadian Air Force took delivery of two long-awaited Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclones at 12 Wing Shearwater, N.S. However, neither is the aircraft that has been the subject of controversy since it was delivered to the base early last year.

That original model, Maritime Helicopter 806, has been returned to the Sikorsky assembly centre in West Palm Beach, Fla., for unspecified modifications. It will be returned to Shearwater “at a later date,” said the Department of National Defence (DND).

The newly-arrived pair of Cyclones, MH805 and 808, which remain Sikorsky’s property until the DND takes possession, are still considered “interim maritime helicopters” and, like 806, are being used primarily for maintenance and non-flight aircrew training.

“Some critical work remains outstanding before the Canadian Forces [CF] can take formal delivery of the first interim maritime helicopters,” DND commented. “Most notably, a Canadian military flight clearance and training for the initial cadre of aircrew and technicians need to be completed. . . . Once the delivery requirements have been met, DND/CF will take delivery . . . to commence initial operational test and evaluation.”

While official lips are sealed at DND and Public Works & Government Services Canada (PWGSC), the other department most involved in the procurement, the fundamental deficiency is understood to be the power-to-weight ratio. The original General Electric CT7-8A1 evidently was heavier than expected which, coupled with “Canadianization” of what was supposed to be an off the shelf (OTS) aircraft, compromised its performance.

The OTS angle was highlighted by the Office of the Auditor-General, which said in a report to Parliament in late 2010 that DND not only had failed to adequately assess the “developmental nature” of the aircraft, but also had underestimated “the risks related to cost and the complexity of the required technical modifications.”

The first production aircraft, MH801, flew in November 2008 and the power problem soon became apparent, prompting confirmation of an engine upgrade in May 2010. Designated CT7-8A7, the new engine, developed at GE’s expense, generates 10 percent more power with a redesigned fuel manifold and nozzles, among other modifications. In the meantime, the “interim” aircraft have CT7-8A1 engines.

The Cyclone project dates to the mid-1980s, when DND acknowledged the need to plan on replacing its fleet of 1960s-era Sikorsky CH-124 Sea Kings. But it would be years before the need for Sea King replacements became urgent. In 2008-2009, the federal government awarded a contract to Sikorsky to begin delivering 28 aircraft. It also opted to purchase 15 EH101s from AgustaWestland for DND’s search and rescue (SAR) work, and those CH-149 Cormorants remain the backbone of coastal SAR today.

Nearly a year before the first Cyclone was to be delivered, Sikorsky sought “schedule relief” because of what it called “excusable” issues with the project. Then, about the time the first aircraft had been originally expected, DND and PWGSC agreed to a new schedule, which would see deliveries of “interim” platforms in November 2010 and fully compliant helicopters by June 2012.

That amended contract, which involved no penalties for Sikorsky, also saw the cost of 28 helicopters increase by more than five percent to some $1.9 billion US. Then, in late 2009, Sikorsky advised that it could not deliver a fully compliant helicopter by the new deadline. The contract was amended again in June 2010, providing for delivery of the first six aircraft with preliminary mission software by that November. A short time later, however, Sikorsky said first delivery would not take place until possibly February 2011, which eventually was pushed back yet again, to May 2011, when MH 806 arrived at Shearwater.

DND’s current but anodyne position is that it “continues to closely monitor progress” with a view to taking formal delivery of a fully compliant interim aircraft this year.

So in addition to the failure to meet various feature KPPs, this confirms the issue with engine power.

[cdnnighthawk]

Ken Pole's most recent article on the subject is not accurate. He should have researched the subject more thoroughly before hitting the send button.

The fact is that Sikorsky originally proposed to Canada a MH-92 with the CT7-8A engine at an estimated aircraft mission weight (unknown at the time because the MH-92 was just a paper aircraft) that was about 3000 lbs lighter than the aircraft eventually came in at (its currently estimated to be 29,400 lbs MGTOW).

The FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet for the CT7 FAA TCDS #E8NE (available on the FAA website) confirms that the dry weights of the CT7-8A and the CT7-8A1 are identical. In GE's defence, the Cyclone engine is therefore NOT heavier than anticipated. The difference between the CT7-8A and the CT7-8A1 is related to their different engine fuel filters and slightly different power output ... not their weight.

The same TCDS also confirms that the recently certified (21 May 2012) CT7-8A7 engine (same dry weight as the CT7-8A! BTW) failed to meet the required 10% take-off and OEI power increase needed for the Cyclone to meet the contract OEI performance requirements.

I attach a comparison below... you have to read the data presented against the initial order of column titles at the top of the list because the PPrune site can't seem to accept the table as extracted.. it may still be understandable as presented but to get a clearer picture of the data presented, go to the FAA's online TCDS Library and ask for TCDS E8NE.

Extract from FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet E8NE Revision 27


CT7-8A1
CT7-8A7
SHP Increase
% Increase
Maximum Continous
2041 (CT7-8A1)
2323 (CT7-8A7)
282 SHP increase
13.8% increase
Take Off ~ 5 Minute
2538 (CT7-8A1)
2685 (CT7-8A7)
147 SHP increase
5.8% increase
30 Minute
2334 (CT7-8A1)
2627 (CT7-8A7)
293 SHP increase
12.6% increase
OEI ~ Continuous
2495 (CT7-8A1)
2627 (CT7-8A7)
132 SHP increase
5.3% increase
OEI ~ 2 Minute
2502 (CT7-8A1)
2667 (CT7-8A7)
165 SHP increase
6.6% increase
OEI ~ 30 Second
2712 (CT7-8A1)
2788 (CT7-8A7)
76 SHP increase
2.8% increase











NOTE 45. The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) for the CT7-8A6/-8A7 engines are incomplete. No aircraft with these engines will be eligible for a Standard Airworthiness Certificate until the ICA are complete and accepted.

The Cyclone's underpower issue is still unresolved.

[cdnnighthawk]

The Canadian Minister of Defence said yesterday that the Cyclone deal is the worst procurement in Canadian history and he has no idea when it will finally be delivered....

MacKay: Cyclone helicopter deal 'worst' in Canada's history | CTVNews (http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/mackay-cyclone-helicopter-deal-worst-in-canada-s-history-1.872924)

[cdnnighthawk]

The stomach churning has erupted again...

Ottawa again renegotiating huge chopper contract - Canada - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/10/11/sea-king-helicopter-contract.html)

[Tcabot113]

After that the statement of the President of Sikorsky made that statement the Canadian Govt should soon be owning the company.

TC

[JohnDixson]

One of the things Mr. Maurer said was that the major obstacle was the mission system software development, verification and validation. My recollection is that mission systems development was outsourced to General Dynamics Canada, and that there wasn't any choice in the matter. That is a pretty dated recollection, and subject to correction by someone who has more current information. If true, however, it certainly explains a lot of things.

[[email protected]]

Contractors and sub-contractors blaming each other for the delays --- surely not:E

[JohnDixson]

"Surely not".

On point, Crab. Doing "offset" can be risky business. In this case, it seems both entities own some of the problem. SA/UTC bought Claverham for the fly by wire servos, and that has been a long, long tale of trouble, while the contract offset needs brought GDC into the picture, and as Maurer stated, they still haven't delivered. Neither side, both being vulnerable, is motivated to wash all the laundry in public, so a negotiated outcome makes sense. Just my out of touch observation.

By the way, there is one other aspect of this program that struck me as I looked at the photo of the MHP in the link. Can't comment on this because I just don't know the history, but all of that claptrap on the outside made me wonder about mission creep and associated weight growth. Perhaps there is a bit of that involved as well.

[Tcabot113]

JD

How is it the mission equipment results in the inability to fly at night or over water for simple training flights? These are core avionics issues!

I thought my post would finally quiet the crickets on this thread.

JD,

Not delivering aircraft helps the bottom line? At $200M apiece they should be rushing to deliver them. Any insight into this?

TC

[JohnDixson]

Sorry, but I don't have any knowledge about the night/over water story. Might be one of those situations where my choice of the word " story " turns out to be an accurate description.

On the second question, the story re the SA bottom line being better by not delivering aircraft seemed 180 out to me as well. I don't know the details of that contract, but typically, even with a contract that provides progress payments ( and I have no idea if this contract does that ), there is a huge amount of company money residing in those ready to deliver aircraft, and therefore justifiable reason to exert every effort to deliver and receive payment. Perhaps there will be some follow-up reporting that clarifies the issue.

[cdnnighthawk]

The reason why Sikorsky's profit line for the current year would not be as healthy with Cyclone delivery as it would be if Cyclone delivery is further delayed is because of the late delivery withhold along with Canada's continued reluctance to pony up the full development costs (ie. Cyclone NRE cost overrun) at time of delivery. If delivery occurs under the current terms, Sikorsky would be delivering aircraft to Canada at a loss. There is no late delivery penalty for being later than 300 days, so that penalty would have been maxed out long ago.... in other words, further delays come at no cost to the contractor.

One of the reasons there are extra bumps on the airframe is because all of the mission equipment called for in the original contract does not fit inside anything smaller than an AW101. There has been no mission creep, although the final weight has turned out to be much higher than Sikorsky said it would be back in 2004.

The overland and daytime in-sight-of-the-ground flight restrictions are related to safety/airworthiness issues for which reasons I only have scant info. My guess (speculation) based upon the little that I have been able to gather is that the restrictions are related to some unresolved fly-by-wire certification matters and also, the MGB reliability. I have been told that the initial poor reliability of the FBW servo actuators has been resolved and is no longer a concern.

Hope this helps to answer some questions.

[212man]

there is a huge amount of company money residing in those ready to deliver aircraft, and therefore justifiable reason to exert every effort to deliver and receive payment

I can vouch for that - especially as the fiscal year draws to a close!!!

Dec 2006, "are you sure they're ready?" "Oh yes, they're finished," so 7 of us head BWN-SIN-EWR, drive to PA and..........you want us to accept what? So back home again. Even had the offer of the UT G-V to collect us after Christmas - and before the 31st - to accept them!

Jan 2007 BWN-SIN-EWR, drive to PA and.........accept 3 finished airframes, and back home awaiting their arrival in the 224.

[cdnnighthawk]

More news from Flight Global on the anticipated hit to Sikorsky's profit line when and if the Cyclones are finally turned over to the customer....

No resolution in sight for Canada's Sikorsky Cyclone saga (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/no-resolution-in-sight-for-canadas-sikorsky-cyclone-saga-378087/?cmpid=SOC|FGFG|twitterfeed|FG_military&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

[Ian Corrigible]

Additional details from the UTX 3Q call:

Greg Hayes, CFO:
"I'd like to say we're making good progress. What we want here, and I said it before, we need a win-win on this with the Canadian government. Obviously, we're disappointed we haven't been able to deliver the helicopters. We're building them right now down at West Palm. We'd expected to build 5 -- build and deliver 5 this year, build and deliver 19 next year. We're well on our way for all those helicopters. But until we have an agreement with the Canadian government in terms of the final configuration and an interim configuration, we really can't ship anything. So as I sit here today, I tell you we don't have a solution. I certainly hope by the time Louis [Chênevert, UTC CEO] stands up in early December, we can give you guys some more clarity on it. But right now, all I know is that we need to continue to work with the Canadians to find a win-win here."

Jesus Malave, Director IR:
"We're ready to deliver the 5 aircraft. It's just a matter of letting this negotiation play out."

I/C

[cdnnighthawk]

More info, this time from the UTC Q3 2012 SEC Filing that was published yesterday... the portion highlighted below is slightly more negative in tone than it was in the Q2 report.
26 October 2012:

As previously reported, Sikorsky is developing the CH-148 derivative of the H-92 helicopter, a military variant of the S-92 helicopter, for the Canadian government. The CH-148 is being developed under a fixed-price contract that provides for the development and production of 28 helicopters, and related logistical support through March 2028. The current contract value is estimated to be $4.5 billion, and is subject to changes in underlying variables such as future flight hours as well as fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates. Sikorsky and the Canadian government have a number of open disputes relating to the contract, including responsibility for delay of delivery of the fully configured and tested aircraft beyond the current contract delivery schedule and other disputes relating to development, production and logistical support. Sikorsky is prepared to deliver aircraft in 2012 in a configuration that will require additional hardware and further software testing and upgrades before full mission capability can be achieved. Sikorsky intends to continue discussions with the Canadian government to resolve the open disputes, however, it is increasingly unlikely that the parties will reach a contractual solution that allows for delivery of these aircraft or revenue recognition in 2012. As discussions continue, the inability to achieve a satisfactory contractual solution could lead to a further negative financial impact on the program in the future.

[cdnnighthawk]

Last year at this time, UTC stated that it would deliver six interim Cyclones during 2012... none were delivered and there is still no airworthiness certification yet let alone any checklists, flight manual or training manuals.

This year UTC has stated that it will instead deliver eight interim Cyclones during 2013.
See story....
Delivery of Sea King replacement helicopters delayed once again (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Delivery+King+replacement+helicopters+delayed+once+again/7717268/story.html#ixzz2FV8bEG3H)

[SansAnhedral]

Unbelievable!

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Suddenly Westland begin to look half competent...

[500e]

Now that is a scary thought :sad:

[espresso drinker]

"Half competent"....will be taken as a compliment :)

Latest from the Canadian press :( Canadian Government Requires Sikorsky To Pay $8 Million In Damages For Late Delivery of Cyclone Helicopters (http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/12/20/canadian-government-requires-sikorsky-to-pay-8-million-in-damages-for-late-delivery-of-cyclone-helicopters-but-have-they-paid/)

At least the Canadians got their Cormorants and the MGB of the AW101 has a proper 30 minute run dry time, not certified through a loop hole ("loss of transmissions oil extremely remote", or very similar wording) that was added to the certification criteria after it abysmally failed the test, only for the extremely remote bit to be subsequently proved wrong with a very unfortunate loss of life on the second occassion (after insufficient action was taken after the first). If the MGB of the CH-148 can't still pass the 'proper' 30 run dry time lets hope that the loss of transmissions oil is now less extremely remote than before, increased number of oil filter retaining steel studs aside. :mad:

Sorry for the rant (an unfortunate personal trait), it's just I'm more disappointed in the certifying authorities. No aircraft is without it's problems, we can easily get into a slanging match on the merits Vs. the problems of each aircraft in this type, but it shouldn't be something as serious as this. Also, it still upsets me to see the S92 being touted as the best thing since sliced bread and meeting the latest most stringent airworthiness stardards (but I guess that just marketing for you).

[JohnDixson]

Prior to retiring in 2005, I recall discussion ( in the Pilots Office, so you know the data is suspect! ) re the MHP contract and delivery penalties. My recollection is that they were pegged at $100,000US per day. That figure may have been contractually changed, of course, since that time. But if that figure remained in place, the current report citing the Canadian Government quoting the fine at $ 8,000,000US seems to imply recognition that non-SA factors were present.

[Thone1]

Those delays with the Cormorant introduction at Canada leads to Germany probably not being able to select the Cyclone as a desperately needed replacement for the Sea King MK41 and therefor having to settle for the not yet existing MH-90 :mad::mad:

I know they say there´s no bad PR, only PR, but this proves that wrong.

Thomas

[Ian Corrigible]

John,

The Canadian Government's willingness not to charge the C$100K/day penalty (initially up to a maximum of C$36 million, later C$88 mil) has been widely covered, the general feeling being that the reason for lack of enforcement was a desire to avoid the program being seen as failure. Democracy Watch has highlighted this issue of the fees being waived "to save face" on many occasions.

In January 2007, the Government announced that the initial delay to the program was due to the Teamsters strike at Sikorsky, which it decided was "an excusable delay" with the contract amended as a result.

In December 2008 the Government decided to give Sikorsky another two years to fix the program before penalties were applied.

In July 2010 the Government again decided to belay the contract penalty, choosing instead to temporarily withhold scheduled progress payments, with the grace period extended to 43 months.

In June the Government claimed that it had fined SAC C$8 mil for delays, with threats of a further C$80.6 mil in liquidated damages if delivery slips beyond July 2013, but based on Canada's track record it's unlikely the penalty will be levied. More likely some fluff about an enhanced support package or somesuch.

I/C

[SansAnhedral]

Canadian Maritime H-92 hits Sikorsky parent UTC results | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source (http://helihub.com/2013/01/24/canadian-maritime-h-92-hits-sikorsky-parent-utc-results/)

Canadian Maritime H-92 hits Sikorsky parent UTC results
24 Jan, 13
UTC, the parent company of Sikorsky, reported its fourth quarter and full year results yesterday. In a very telling section of the press release, they admit that "earnings per share [of parent UTC] of $1.04 were down 27%" and of that, "results included a $0.12 charge recorded at Sikorsky related to the Canadian Maritime Helicopter program". The detail is that the "Earnings Per Share of Common Stock - Diluted", subtitle "From continuing operations" fell 27% from $1.42 to $1.04.

So, the Canadian Maritime Helicopter program contributed $0.12 of the $0.38 drop in group earnings per share. Consider that against the fact that Sikorsky only contributes 11.8% of UTC's turnover - $6,791B out of $57.708B

The annual numbers also showed Sikorsky were
* 7.7% down on turnover to $6.791B from $7.355B
* 15.2% down on operating profit to $712M from $840M
* Profit margin was down from 11.4% to 10.5%

[Ian Corrigible]

The $157M charge covers late delivery penalties of $14M per aircraft, reduced aftermarket revenues and costs associated with keeping the CH-148 production line going for longer than planned.

Cyclone deliveries will now extend out to 2015, five or six years later than scheduled.

I/C

[Jack Carson]

“The Worst Procurement
in the History of Canada”
Solving the Maritime Helicopter Crisis
Michael Byers and Stewart Webb

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2013/02/Worst%20Procurement%20in%20History.pdf

[Shawn Coyle]

Mostly because Jean Cretin wouldn't accept EH-101s for ASW many, many years ago.
Politics - The gift that keeps on giving.

[espresso drinker]

Some light bed time reading. Had a quick read and I'm glad that it covers some points close to my heart, no true 30 minute run dry time (despite misleading promotional material, manufacturer's claims, loop holes added by the FAA, etc), political face saving not to purchase the 101 for the second requirment (having already having had to purchased the previously cancelled 101 for ths SAR).

And the usual 'mission creep'/increasing requirements from the Canadians (typical of most countries in this business). Found it interesting that this is the likely reason that the Canadians don't stick it to Sikorsky for fear of being countersued.

Everyone's a loser, especially the service personnel that need the aricraft and the taxpayers footing the bill. :(

Waiting to see what happens now. Any bookies out there taking bets on this?

[espresso drinker]

Jack, thanks for posting the link by the way.

[Jack Carson]

Now that I have had a chance to read the entire document and have had a little time to reflect on the issues outlined within, I do not see much different from similar issues that have played out on other programs around the world. ED is it mission creep that derails programs or is it just a case of the manufacturers promising more than they could possibly deliver? Over the last twenty years the helicopter industry has seen other programs with similar results. As an example, ten years after the Nordic Standard Helicopter Program decision was made some of the member countries have had to fall back on direct government procurement of off the shelf military aircraft to fill the gaps left by the standard program failures. One telling quote from this paper sums up the issue: “According to the Auditor General’s Office, the overall project risk was assessed to be “low to medium” because the Cy¬clone was considered to be non-developmental as it would be utilizing “off-the-shelf” technologies.

Transforming the S-92 into a military aircraft has turned out to be more difficult than anticipated.

[JohnDixson]

Have not cracked open the report yet, however two observations re recent posts:

Shawn, re PM Jean Cretin and his decision not to continue with the 101: could it have been the same reasons that the US Gov't decided similarly?

Espresso Drinker, in the list for whom we should shed a tear, could we add UTC stockholders?

[JohnDixson]

Espresso Drinker has is right: that report is indeed light reading. Just one example: in para 8 re Lengthening Delays, it proposes that the Canadian Navy may have been caught off guard in 2012 due to the delays. Preposterous: the Canadian Gov't has had a test team of test pilots and engineers at the SA Flight Test Facility in West Palm Beach since the outset of flying, and that group has been involved in the progress of the program since the get-go.

Anyone know the provenance of the report?

[Dave_Jackson]

John Dixson wrote; "Anyone know the provenance of the report?"

The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/five-decades-two-contracts-and-still-no-helicopters-for-canada/article8435147/)

[Thomas coupling]

The true extent of the delay is now 5yrs and counting.

Why doesnt the product meet demand exactly? I observe that the original engines were underpowered but why so long in finding replacements?

Finally, why is the common theme -the DoD / government:

EH101(CH149) / F35 / CH148 are all blunders on an epic scale. The blind leading the blind here, no? :mad:

[500e]

"The true extent of the delay is now 5yrs and counting.
Why doesn't the product meet demand exactly? I observe that the original engines were underpowered but why so long in finding replacements? (Why any need to, calculations \ weights incorrect :\)
Finally, why is the common theme -the DoD / government:
EH101(CH149) / F35 / CH148 are all blunders on an epic scale. The blind leading the blind here, no? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif"

TC
I think you are being to kind

[espresso drinker]

To answer some of the questions posed to me, especially John's, I understand that the US (Navair) wanted so many changes to the initial specification of the US101 presidential aircraft that the cost just rocketed. My favorite examples, 'the airstair door opening is too low, we don't want the president to have to stoop as he exits the aircraft, we want a higher door' (not a cheap and easy job to modify the aircraft structure to accomodate a bigger door), 'the downwash from the rotors is too powerful and could damage the turf of the White House Lawn, we want you to redesign the rotor blades (again not cheap and easy and would have resulted in longer blades necessitating a lengthening of the tail boom). Multiply these and 100's more minor mods and I think that you might get the idea.

Jack, no one is blameless in this game, but even to start with the customer's performance requirements/spec are pushing the bounderies of the available aircraft (from all the manufacturers), especially naval/ASW aircraft full of fancy 'stuff'. Then when they start asking for changes when you thought that they were happy the original aircraft spec then things get difficult, especially the weight.

I guess it's a bit like agreeing a price on a new standard model car and shaking hands on it, for the customer to say just before he takes delivery that actually he wants built in Sat. Nav./GPS, metallic paint and alloys wheels.

Henry Ford had the right idea, any colour (color) as long as it's black.

[SansAnhedral]

A post (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/305560-canada-cormorant-cyclone-thread-5.html#post7146102) from nearly a year back that seems worth repeating

The COTS dogma is an abject failure, when attempting to use a civilian-designed and certified helicopter.

In each and every case, requirement creep catches up to the machine. This causes schedule delays, performance hits, and budget overruns.

S92 - CH148 : 4 years late now, millions over budget, and still no completed IDMGB or mission system package

VH71 - AW101 : Billions over budget thanks to insane requirement changes midway though the design process

CSARX, VXX : All axed due to inflated costs in the face of progressively tighter budgets

EC145 - UH72 : One of the few touted "success stories", but this is because this machine was not very militarized and its mission is designed almost exactly the same as its civil counterpart (quite a rarity). That said, even this helicopter had some fairly major issues with its new avionics overheating, which required the addition of some fairly ungainly cooling equipment cutting into its capacity.

The idea that taking a COTS machine and "cheaply" obtaining your military helicopter is deeply flawed and this has been proven over recent history. The customer always realizes (after the contract award) just how much of a compromise it is to be constrained to the COTS product performance, and then tries to redesign it to such an extent that the process breaks down.

[Jack Carson]

If you turn back the clock a little more than 50 years, one would find that most of our helicopter fleet was derived from civil certified machines. This was in part due to the US Army’s lack of having any formal aircraft evaluation system in place. I don’t believe that the US Army’s AVSCOM included helicopter procurement until around 1964. Until 1964 any aircraft that vied for US Army procurement had to be civil certified. The UH-1, CH-47 and UH-3A were all civil certified machines. The kicker back then was that only straight forward modifications (armor, armament & specific communications equipment) were required to field the machines. The same can be said of the recent fielding of the UH-72. COTS is a viable solution for some of the more straight forward missions. No one can argue that the S-92 is very capable SAR aircraft that has been proven operationally around the world. There is a significant leap when one attempts to insert any civil certified airframe into the very demanding world of military ASW or CSAR missions. The cost of participation increases dramatically.

[Thone1]

Annoyingly one could easily replace "Canada" with "Germany" or any other european country currently trying to resolve the aging helicopter fleet issue.
So it´s not just Sikorsky who mess it up, Eurocopter is just as bad, maybe even worse.
Billions of Dollars and Euros being wasted due to incompetency and ignorance.

Tom

[Jack Carson]

Thone1 you could also add the ANZAC SH-2G helicopter program to that list.

[Shawn Coyle]

Jack:
Are you pointing at the Australian or Kiwi side of this?
Royal Australian Navy went for a new version (digital AFCS, new tactical nav/attack system) and ended up not getting anything.
Royal New Zealand Navy bought the older, steam driven version and seem to be happy with that after nearly 15 years...

[Jack Carson]

Shawn,
I was looking more toward the process than the aircraft. The procurement process has morphed into a monster that generates multi-thousand page detailed Request For Proposals (RFPs) requiring overwhelming levels of detail and technical data. Clarence L. “Kelly” Johnson describes this evolution quite succinctly in his biography, Kelly - More than My Share of it All, when comparing the development processes for the C-130A and the C-5A. In his book he describes how a C-130 was required to transport the company’s response to the C-5 RFP while the C-130 response fit in a single loose leaf type binder. In retrospect, how much less costly would it have been for New Zealand to procure SH-2Gs directly from the US Government through the FMS process.

[SansAnhedral]

HELI-EXPO: Sikorsky (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/heli-expo-sikorsky-hopeful-on-resolution-of-canadian-helo-contract-impasse-383078/)

Sikorsky chief executive Mick Mauer says he believes that a compromise remains likely on deadlocked negotiations over a contract to supply 28 maritime patrol helicopters (MHP) to the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Although some Canadian lawmakers have called for a re-competition of the 2004 award to Sikorsky, Mauer says is still "hopeful that we're going to resolve" the dispute.

"I think we're going to work our way through this," Maurer says. "We've one this before."

At the same time, Mauer acknowledges that it was Sikorsky's problems developing the software for the CH-148 Cyclone fleet that led to the delays and the need to re-compete the contract.

"The issue we have in terms of the programme is that our software is behind on the mission system," he explains. "The contract doesn't allow us to deliver the aircraft that kind of disconnect."

The current negotiations are aimed at creating a contractual means for Sikorsky to deliver the helicopters with an initial software load for the mission systems, then phase in the full range of capabilities over a period of time.

"I expect some time soon we'll start to see maybe a breakthrough to get those two aligned," he says.

So far, Sikorsky already has started production on 26 of the purchased 28 CH-148s, which are modified versions of the S-92 heavylift helicopter.

Looks like Mauer is owning up for the delay as being caused by SAC mission system programming.

[SansAnhedral]

Canada and Sikorsky Still Circling on Cyclone (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:7f15427e-614f-4697-a675-42bce1a7dd6d)

Canada and Sikorsky continue to work at the mess that is the CH-148 Cyclone maritime helicopter program. The Department of National Defence (DND) has posted an update on the much-delayed program, while procurement agency Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) says it will impose significant additional penalties on Sikorsky for late delivery.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWeek/Ares/GrahamW/CH-148-1.jpg

Sikorsky parent United Technologies, meanwhile, has taken a $157 million charge to cover its costs for the delays, including the expected penalties. Also Sikorsky will lose $14 million on each of the 28 helicopters it delivers, and now admits its C$3.4 billion ($3.3 billion) 20-year in-service support contract will never recover the losses on its C$1.9 billion procurement contract.

When the contracts were signed in November 2004, the first CH-148 was scheduled to be delivered in November 2008. The root of the problem is that Canada signed a fixed-price procurement contract for an aircraft that still had to be developed. The contract requires the delivery of fully compliant helicopters, and the Cyclone is not there yet.

Sikorsky has been trying to persuade Canada to modify the contract to allow it to deliver the aircraft in an interim standard, then upgrade them. And it claims the DND wants to take the helicopters, so that it can begin training, but part of the problem is that the contract is with PWGSC, which is a separate agency.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWeek/Ares/GrahamW/CH-148-2.jpg

The manufacturer says 24 of the 28 Cyclones are in production, assembly or test. Four of them (804, 806, 807 and 808) have been delivered to CFB Shearwater, but they remain the property of Sikorsky and are being used as ground‑based aids to support technician training. No aircraft were delivered in 2012, and Sikorsky is now planning to hand over eight a year beginning in 2013.

The original contract was renegotiated in December 2008, and required delivery of fully compliant helicopters to begin in June 2012 (a delay of 3 years 9 months). Unless that contract is modified, that means Sikorsky will not complete delivery of the helicopters until 2015.

But the DND, in its update, says it expects "to take formal delivery of the interim maritime helicopters in 2013", which might offer a glimmer of hope. The DND says issues that must be resolved before it can take formal delivery of the first interim helicopters include Canadian military flight clearance and training of the initial cadre of aircrew and technicians.

The Cyclone, a unique and substantially modified derivative of the commercial S-92, encountered problems first with the aircraft and later with its mission system. Sikorsky now says the mission system equipment is 97% complete -- enough to begin training, it believes, but not everything the DND wants and the PWGSC contracted for.

[tottigol]

Well, look at the positive side: Canada shall enjoy the "Cyclops" five years longer...or perhaps seven...or ten than what they originally planned.

[Thone1]

As of almost two weeks ago Germany has decided to not take the S-92 as a successor to the Sea King but to rely on Eurocopter to develop and deliver an NH-90 derivative of some sort.

Sikorsky has been working hard to stay in the "contest".
Political decision making however made it impossible to not choose a european product.

Tom

[tottigol]

Or maybe it was the major debacle of the Cyclone in Canada and some "minor" gearbox issues affecting the S-92?:rolleyes:

[Thone1]

No.

As there is still not a single definition written about what the new NH-90 derivate should be able to do, those years of development apply to both types of aircraft.

Eurocopter apparently pushed as far as they could to get a decision before the election.
And, unfortunately, they won.

Tom

[SansAnhedral]

the saga continues

U.S. firm racks up millions in fines (http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/firm+racks+millions+fines/8568617/story.html)

U.S. firm racks up millions in fines


BY DAVID PUGLIESE, POSTMEDIA NEWS JUNE 24, 2013



U.S. aerospace giant Sikorsky has racked up almost $86 million in penalties for failing to deliver Cyclone helicopters to Canada's military but has yet to pay the money.

There is also still no word when the helicopters, already more than four years late, will be delivered to the Royal Canadian Air Force.

But Public Works did confirm in an email that, "as of June 14, 2013, the total amount of liquidated damages accrued for late delivery is $85.7 million." The maximum amount of damages that Sikorsky could be hit with is $88.6 million, the email added.

"When the government signs a contract with a supplier, it expects their obligations under the contract to be met," the email noted.

Public Works, however, will not say why the penalties have not been paid. Sikorsky spokesman Paul Jackson said the company is in discussions with Public Works and the Defence Department about "contractual disputes" and will not comment.

The original contract called for the first Sikorsky Cyclone helicopter to be delivered in November 2008, with deliveries of all 28 helicopters completed by early 2011. But Sikorsky has yet to turn over a single helicopter to Canada under the $5.7-billion program. The Cyclone is supposed to replace the military's aging Sea King helicopters.

The Conservatives have laid blame on the Liberals for the problem-plagued program because Paul Martin's government awarded the contract to Sikorsky in 2004. Liberals have countered that the mismanagement has occurred under Conservative watch. Liberals have pointed out there are substantial penalties in the original contract the government has not enforced.

[tottigol]

Wow! When all is said and done those Craporskys are going to cost the Canadian taxpayers more than 200 millions a pop?!

That is unless they become obsolete even before the first one reaches IOC.:ok:

[heli1]

Well , Canada has got nine ex US presidential EH101s with delivery mileage only doing nothing that could be converted to ASW ...oh forgot,been there,cancelled that!

[tottigol]

Now, was that a Liberal or a Conservative who cancelled that first contract?:E

[Viper 7]

Wow - that Radome is going to get pounded during DDLs.

What are the new deck limits? There's no way that will do 6/25.

Nice blinky lights, but it can't fly in sea states that the Sea King can?

Yay for progress...:yuk:

[cdnnighthawk]

It appears that the Harper Government is building their public case for termination of the contract:

Sea King helicopter replacement hits a new snag

Ottawa hires consultant to study if Sikorsky can deliver promised helicopters

By James Cudmore, CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/credit.html)

Posted: Jun 25, 2013

Read 48 comments48 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/06/25/pol-sea-king-replacement-contract-sikorsky.html#socialcomments)
PHOTO: A Canadian military Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone conducts test flights with HMCS Montreal in Halifax harbour on April 1, 2010. (Andrew Vaughan/Canadian Press)
Related Stories

Watch MPs debate helicopter procurement (http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power+%26+Politics/ID/2334178175/?page=23&sort=MostPopular)
New military helicopters may not be ready for 5 years (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/07/04/weston-naval-helicopter-delays.html)
The decades-long project to replace Canada's 50-year-old Sea King helicopters has hit another snag, with the government now hiring an independent expert to study whether helicopter-maker Sikorsky is even capable of delivering a replacement as promised.
CBC News has learned that Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose has gone outside government and hired a consultant to study Sikorsky's work, and Canada's contract, to determine whether it's even possible for the U.S. helicopter giant to deliver the aircraft Canada ordered.
The details of the hire — or the review — are not publicly available and Ambrose's office has yet to provide more information, but Ambrose herself offered the news after questions from the CBC about Sikorsky and its contract.
"I have employed the services of an independent consultant and contractor to undertake a review of the ability of this company to deliver this to the government," Ambrose said.
The Defence Department's maritime helicopter project is the successor to the failed procurement of 50 EH-101 helicopters promised in 1992 by former prime minister Brian Mulroney. That program was cancelled in 1993 as part of an election promise made by Jean Chrétien.
For years, the program lay dormant as Canada's Sea King helicopters slowly gathered wear and tear.
In 2004, Sikorsky won a formal contract to provide 28 new CH-148 Cyclone helicopters to Canada.
The initial contract was worth $1.8 billion for aircraft, and an additional $3.2 billion for 20 years of maintenance and support.
Missed deadlines

Delivery was to begin in November 2008, but it never did. The deadline slipped, and then slipped again.
In 2010, Canada agreed to accept six interim helicopters with lesser capabilities than those ordered by DND, provided Sikorsky agree to deliver "fully compliant" helicopters beginning in June 2012.


MacKay says chopper deal 'worst' in Canada's history (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2012/07/10/ns-helicopter-deal-mackay.html)
New military helicopters may not be ready for 5 years (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/07/04/weston-naval-helicopter-delays.html)
Navy helicopter contract renegotiated (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2010/07/26/navy-cyclone-helicopters.html)

So far, only four helicopters have been delivered — all of them interim, and none of them meeting even those lower "interim" standards, said Ambrose.
"I am very disappointed in Sikorsky," she told CBC News. "They have not met their contractual obligations to date. They have missed every deadline and every timeline in the delivery of even the interim maritime helicopter, never mind the fully compliant maritime helicopter."
With the Sea Kings now about to enter their 50th year of service, and maintenance costs soaring, the military is desperate for some form of new maritime helicopter.
The Royal Canadian Air Force realizes the procurement process is slow, and unless the military is able to begin training on some variant of the Cyclone it won't be ready to fly the new helicopters when they finally start arriving.
Now, CBC News has learned Public Works is refusing to allow the military to accept delivery of those four interim helicopters, because they allegedly aren't up to standards.
"The bottom line is that they have not met their contractual obligation," Ambrose told the CBC. "The interim helicopter does not meet the requirements of the air force, so we are not going to take delivery of a helicopter that is not compliant."
Sikorsky seems to be sensitive to Ambrose's criticisms, though it's not clear what it intends to do about it.
"We appreciate the minister's concerns and, consistent with our past practice, will not comment on any discussions we are having with the Canadian government," Sikorsky spokesman Paul Jackson said by email. "The program itself is among the most sophisticated ever conducted by Sikorsky, and it continues to move forward."
Regardless, the 4½-year delay continues to have an effect on military plans.
The air force is already working on how to keep flying its Sea Kings for years more. And that has consequences for the Royal Canadian Navy, too, affecting the long-planned upgrade of its Halifax-class frigates.
The upgrade is necessary to extend the life of the vessels, and naval planners had intended to use that lengthy work period to upgrade the ships' helicopter facilities.
The Cyclone is larger and heavier then the Sea King, and the landing decks and hangars need to be upgraded.
But with no deadline in sight for delivery of the final version of the Cyclones, the navy is planning to keep some of its frigates fitted for Sea Kings. That will necessitate a further refit for the ships, once the Cyclones actually arrive.

[tottigol]

The Canadian Navy ought to continue with their plans to upgrade their DDs and frigates for a heavier and larger helicopter, because (given the current operational requisites) whatever they are going to get shall be larger than the Sea King .

[SansAnhedral]

Looks like SAC has something to say.

Spooling up the Cyclones | Vertical Magazine - The Pulse of the Helicopter Industry (http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/24552#.UeAZXEHU98E)

SPOOLING UP THE CYCLONES
2013-07-11 13:49:43
by Ken Pole
Share on print Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email More Sharing Services
20


There are four Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclones at Canadian Forces Base Shearwater, N.S., the vanguard of an eventual fleet of 28 replacements for Canada's 50-year-old Sikorsky CH-124 Sea Kings. All of those Shearwater Cyclones remain the property of Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., as do five more in a secure facility in Plattsburgh, N.Y., at a former U.S. Air Force base located about 30 kilometres (20 miles) from the Canadian border. Two more are undergoing testing at Sikorsky's facilities in Florida and Connecticut, and the rest of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) machines are in final assembly. But to date, not one of them has been accepted by Canada.

Overall, the Cyclone has the potential to deliver a huge capability gain to the RCAF. However, the highly-politicized project has been fraught with problems – not only at Sikorsky, but also within the Canadian government, where the complex procurement process involves at least three departments: National Defence, Public Works & Government Services Canada (PWGSC), and Industry Canada.

Throughout the program’s troubled history, Sikorsky has remained largely silent about contractual issues and aircraft development. Recently, however, Vertical asked the company to respond to criticism from PWGSC over the delays. Sikorsky’s reply: The RCAF can immediately roll out its pilot training program using the existing “flight ready” aircraft. In the meantime, sources said, the manufacturer has proposed a way to keep the program moving by continuing to perfect the helicopter’s software package, introducing upgrades in blocks – a traditionally accepted method for new aircraft to reach fully compliant status. This concurrent action plan would bring the Cyclones into service much sooner – and would allow the Sea Kings to retire that much earlier.

The parties seem to have reached an impasse, however, because the government has thus far refused to take delivery of any helicopters until they are deemed 100 per cent compliant. PWGSC said in a July 8 email to Vertical that Sikorsky was required to begin delivering "fully compliant" helicopters in June 2012, and that, "The government expects suppliers to meet their contractual obligations, and we continue to enforce the aircraft manufacturer's contract provisions, including those related to late delivery."

In the meantime, during our research for this article, a troubling indicator of the program's lengthy and problematic history emerged: men and women who joined the RCAF amidst promises of new maritime helicopters have gone through their entire careers, and then retired from the military, without seeing the aircraft become operational!



Development and Evolution

The need to replace the Sea Kings – which entered service in 1963 after an exhaustive procurement program – was first identified in 1978. That set the stage for what eventually became the New Shipborne Aircraft (NSA) project. After almost three decades of political wrangling between the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals on Parliament Hill, then-Prime Minister Paul Martin unveiled plans to acquire 28 Sikorsky Cyclones in 2004. Delivery was slated to begin in November 2008, 48 months after contract award, but that was later postponed to 2012 – an extended deadline which was barely met by Sikorsky.

Evidently, the main issue was that DND considered the aircraft to be "non-developmental," in that it would rely on "off the shelf" technologies. In fact, it was anything but. In her Fall 2010 report to Parliament, Auditor General Sheila Fraser said it was obvious that the Cyclone procurement would be complex. Sikorsky had to convert its civil S-92 to military standards, marinize it, and integrate new components and technologies. "National Defence has, in effect, entered into an agreement . . . to develop a new helicopter, and this should have been reflected in project risk assessments and in information provided to decision-makers."

Fraser also pointed out that the PWGSC-managed pre-qualification process required bidders to submit "proof of compliance" for 476 of the 3,000 technical requirements that were deemed high risk. But there was absolutely "no consideration" of off-the-shelf solutions, a shortcoming the Office of the Auditor General suggested put the program at "significant technical risk associated with the developmental nature of this helicopter."

A veteran Sea King pilot and senior officer – one of those whose entire career held the promise of new helicopters – told Vertical that the program has "always been very political" as the government's requirements evolved. He said that when Prime Minister Jean Chretien pulled the plug on the EHI contract in 1993, operational specifications for the new project were initially scaled back by a third, evidently in the hopes of quickly restarting the competition by making it possible for more aircraft to meet the requirements.

But, it was soon evident that it would be a drawn-out process, which kicked off a debate between operational and political stakeholders about "what the aircraft should and shouldn't be." They did agree, however, that it could not be the EH101. As well, when the prospective suppliers bid, it was "lowest cost compliant" even though, from the RCAF perspective – and eventually, that of Sikorsky – it would be "a developmental aircraft, notwithstanding the rhetoric of the day from the politicians, that we were buying off-the-shelf," the former officer explained.

He also faulted a fundamental lack of project management sophistication for handling developmental programs at DND and PWGSC, due mainly to the fact that Canada has not been the lead customer for a developmental aircraft since the Avro Arrow. That project began as a design study in 1953, and ended with the delta-wing fighter's still-unexplained destruction by government order at the end of that decade. "We always bought after someone else has paid for that first five, six or 10 years of pain: the CC-130J; the CF-18. So the politicization of this project continued, and it became only acceptable in the last few years to accept ‘fully compliant’ [aircraft], because this was a lowest-cost compliant program – 100 per cent on delivery. Everyone else understood it to mean the aircraft would reach 100 per cent compliance, but the initial delivery would occur when the aircraft reached a level of maturity that was acceptable to the air force."

One of the challenges for Sikorsky was its early assumption that Canada's procurement sophistication was similar to that of the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy and others, and that a developmental aircraft would naturally continue to evolve during its first few years in service. Notwithstanding the government’s point of view that the Cyclone has not met 100 per cent of the required specifications, Sikorsky takes the position that the aircraft can be flown as is, with later refinements – including those to the helicopter’s system software – to be added in blocks.

"With the aircraft at this stage of maturity, they'd come back at an agreed-upon time and install a software patch, and another at the next mutually agreeable time, until the aircraft is 100 per cent in compliance,” said one source familiar with the Cyclone program and the block upgrade approach. “This would allow crews to start training on the aircraft now. But, there's a reluctance to do that, since the contract apparently does not reflect the reality of a development program.”



PWGSC declined to explain what level of compliance Sikorsky has achieved to date, even though the manufacturer maintains that all Cyclones at Shearwater and Plattsburg are fully "flight ready," and could be used now for basic training purposes only. Informed sources concur that the aircraft in Shearwater are "materially complete" though without operational mission systems yet. Sikorsky also declined to provide information on any technical aspects of the program, citing contract confidentiality.

Nor would PWGSC identify the "independent consultant" hired to review the Cyclone project by Rona Ambrose, minister of public works and government services and minister for status of women. This recent development is generally seen as a way to relieve some of the procurement-related pressure on the government. If the consultant approves or criticizes the project, the government can say it has carried out due diligence and act accordingly. However, sources allege an agreement apparently existed between the government and Sikorsky that prevented the company from talking about the consultant publicly, even though Ambrose then discussed the matter during a recent CBC interview, which was picked up by other media.

Sikorsky spokesman Paul Jackson said it was difficult to comment on Ambrose’s remarks “without knowing more about the context within which they were made, or whether they were accurately reported.”

When asked to describe the program’s state of readiness, Jackson responded that, "The aircraft are there and ready to fly pending the government’s approval; the state-of-the-art training facility at Shearwater is fully equipped with simulators and the other requisite training devices."

One former Sea King pilot had this perspective: "I think Sikorsky has acted in good faith all along; they're been very quiet," he said, adding that he was not implying that the company wasn't without fault. "They've had more challenges developmentally than they'd hoped. But I don't think they were naïve going into it; it was a developmental program with a lot of challenges."


Safety at Stake?

Many in the military are reluctant to raise the fundamental safety issues resulting from the Cyclone's delay into service. There is no escaping the fact that the mission effectiveness of the Sea King fleet diminishes the longer it is in service. Back in 2001, the Auditor General reported that 30 hours of Sea King maintenance was required for each hour's flying time. While Shearwater personnel say that ratio has been drawn down, thanks mainly to modern diagnostics, it remains a significant cost factor which is exacerbated by a growing scarcity of key spares.

The former pilot interviewed for this article said that the Sea King community has been wrestling with these and other issues since the replacement process became mired in government delays. "Thirty-five years!" the pilot exclaimed, adding that despite the frustration, there are tremendous hopes for the Cyclone.

"When you see the two aircraft side by side, you can't even compare them; they're night and day. I love the Sea King dearly; it's carried me all over the world and brought me home. But if I was going to war tomorrow and had a choice, I'd pick the undelivered, uncertified aircraft, because it's so much more capable. We're talking about the technology jump from our current CF-18 to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter being huge? This is akin to jumping from the CF-104 Starfighter to the F-35. The 104 and the Sea King were both first delivered in 1963!"

With a procurement system divided between a contract management agency (PWGSC), and the end-user community (DND), the end result can be a kind of stasis in which neither department seems capable of making decisions. The process is further complicated by Industry Canada and its focus on contractual spinoffs, known as industrial regional benefits.

On the Sikorsky side, Jackson acknowledged there have been problems with the project. These include issues with the mission systems development, which has proven to be far more complicated than imagined, due to the Cyclone’s high level of sophistication. Sikorsky and General Dynamics Canada have assigned top experts to the challenge, he said.

“We are continuing to have very productive discussions with the government and have high confidence we will find an agreed-upon path to move the program forward,” Jackson concluded. “Sikorsky remains fully committed to this program; and, in the end, all of us want what’s best for the Canadian Armed Forces.”

[HeliHenri]

.

Helicopter purchase’s fate in doubt as Ottawa examines other models :

Helicopter purchase?s fate in doubt as Ottawa examines other models - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/helicopter-purchases-fate-in-doubt-as-ottawa-examines-other-models/article14155484/)

.

[SansAnhedral]

A defence industry source said Thursday that the Canadian government recently sent a team to the U.K. to look at Royal Navy Merlin helicopters.

:D

Annnnd we have come full circle. This is beyond hilarious.

[cdnnighthawk]

Here's the Canadian Press story on the same subject:

Cyclone project may be finished

September 5, 2013 - 8:08pm MURRAY BREWSTER THE CANADIAN PRESS (http://thechronicleherald.ca/author/murray-brewster-the-canadian-press)

Defence officials evaluate possible replacement for troubled helicopter program
OTTAWA — The Harper government may be ready to throw in the towel on the purchase of long-delayed CH-148 Cyclone helicopters and has gone as far as sending a military team to Britain to evaluate other aircraft.
Defence sources say the team, which included an officer from the air force directorate of air requirements branch, visited a southern base in the United Kingdom recently to look at Royal Navy HM-1 Merlin helicopters.
A spokeswoman for Public Works Minister Diane Findley confirmed the government is looking at options “other” than the troubled Cyclones, which are years behind schedule and billions of dollars over-budget.
But Amber Irwin would not get into the details.
“We are conducting an analysis of price and availability of other aircrafts manufactured by other vendors,” Irwin said Thursday. “The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that our armed forces have the equipment they need at the best value to the taxpayer.”
But sources inside National Defence said the effort is “quite serious” and more than just a warning to Sikorsky, the maker the Cyclones, which has been publicly pressuring the Conservative government to accept four test helicopters currently at Canadian Forces Base Shearwater.
It is under contract to deliver a total of 28 aircraft.
The U.S. defence giant wanted to gradually introduce the helicopters into service with scheduled upgrades to the flight software until the aircraft was fully capable of handling all its missions — a proposal the government has steadfastedly rejected.
A spokesman for AugustaWestland, the maker of the Merlin, said the company has watched the unfolding procurement drama and already conducted its own analysis of whether it can meet the Canadian air force’s statement of requirements.
“We have not been asked for inputs,” Jeremy Tracy told The Canadian Press, “but what we have ascertained is that the company is quite happy that we are probably more compliant today than we were at the time of bidding.”
AugustaWestland was a contender a decade ago in the bidding, which ultimately saw Sikorsky picked as the winner.
The Merlin helicopter, which was examined by the team, is a variant of the CH-149 Coromrant, which Canada already flies for search-and-rescue, and both of those aircraft are based on AugustaWestland’s original EH-101 design.
If the Conservatives were to scrap the Cyclone in favour of the Merlin it would be a decision steeped in irony.
In the early 1990s, Brian Mulroney’s government ordered 50 EH-101s to replace the air force’s CH-124 Sea Kings, which are still in service. But the deal was cancelled by Jean Chretien’s Liberals shortly after they were elected in 1993.
It was Paul Martin’s Liberal government which signed the deal Cyclone deal with Sikorsky for $3.2 billion — a figure which has now ballooned to $5.7 billion. The aircraft were supposed to be in service by 2008.
The failure to deliver new aircraft was the subject of a scathing auditor general’s report.
So far, Sikorsky has accrued $88.6 million in liquidated damages for its failure to meet the contract.
Last spring, former public works minister Rona Ambrose asked for an independent analysis of whether Sikorsky could deliver what it promised and Irwin says the government is currently studying a draft version of that report.
Government insiders say it was an attempt to deliver better governance over the program, which has been regular fodder for opposition parties in question period.

[tottigol]

“The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that our armed forces have the equipment they need at the best value to the taxpayer.”

That went out of the window as soon as they cancelled the first contract.

[cdnnighthawk]

Another CP story on the subject from yesterday:

Copter purchase scenario gets murkier

September 7, 2013
The head of the Defence Department’s procurement section said he doesn’t know when the military could have a new maritime helicopter in place if Ottawa abandons the CH-148 Cyclones as it seeks alternatives in the long-delayed program.
Rear Admiral Pat Finn said at a security meeting in Halifax on Friday that the timeline is unclear now that the federal government is looking at other options to replace the air force’s aging fleet of Sea Kings.
He described the latest development as part of a multi-track process with the government assessing other assets that might better suit the military’s maritime needs while remaining in talks with the Cyclone’s manufacturer, Sikorsky.
“If there is to be a change of direction ... we would have to work at what’s the other solution, what’s the different approach and I wouldn’t be able to give you any kind of schedule at this point,” Finn said after a speech updating military procurement programs.
“But we want to make sure that we get the capability that the navy needs and the air force operates on their behalf.”
Sources revealed Thursday that a military team visited a southern base in the United Kingdom recently to look at Royal Navy HM-1 Merlin helicopters.
A spokeswoman for Public Works Minister Diane Finley says the government is looking at options “other” than the troubled Cyclones, which are years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget.
Finn said this latest development should put pressure on the company to deliver on its contract to deliver a total of 28 aircraft.
Sikorsky spokesman Paul Jackson said the company’s singular focus remains on working closely with the Canadian government to deliver a world-class maritime helicopter.
“We have a dedicated team of senior executives, experienced engineers, technicians and support staff working with the Canadian government to deliver the world’s most technologically advanced and capable maritime helicopter to the men and women serving in the Canadian Armed Forces,” he said in an email statement.
“We continue to make strong and steady progress.”
Jackson noted the initial training for Cyclone pilots and maintenance crews has started at Shearwater.
Meanwhile, the New Democrats called on the federal government to work with Sikorsky to sort out their differences. The party’s defence critic said it would be a mistake to cancel the contract especially when a draft independent evaluation of the program says it can be fixed.
“The Conservatives are as much to blame for this mess as the Liberals and they must take responsibility for their poor record on procurement,” said Jack Harris.
“Let’s not forget, in 2008 they paid Sikorsky an extra $117 million to change the design of the choppers, leading to yet further delay.”
Sikorsky has publicly pressured the government to formally accept four test helicopters at Shearwater with the current configuration, which does not allow the aircraft to perform all of the missions expected.
ALISON AULD THE CANADIAN PRESS (http://thechronicleherald.ca/author/alison-auld-the-canadian-press)

[cdnnighthawk]

My last post was incomplete; the full unexpurgated portion of the CP story follows in red ... it adds yet another small dimension to the unfolding story here:

Alison Auld,
The Canadian Press

HALIFAX -- The head of the Defence Department's procurement section said he doesn't know when the military could have a new maritime helicopter in place if Ottawa abandons the CH-148 Cyclones as it seeks alternatives in the long-delayed program.
Rear Admiral Pat Finn said at a security meeting in Halifax on Friday that the timeline is unclear now that the federal government is looking at other options to replace the air force's aging fleet of Sea Kings.
He described the latest development as part of a multi-track process with the government assessing other assets that might better suit the military's maritime needs while remaining in talks with the Cyclone's manufacturer, Sikorsky.
"If there to be a change of direction ... we would have to work at what's the other solution, what's the different approach and I wouldn't be able to give you any kind of schedule at this point," Finn said following a speech updating the military's procurement programs.
"But we want to make sure that we get the capability that the navy needs and the air force operates on their behalf."
Sources revealed Thursday that a military team visited a southern base in the United Kingdom recently to look at Royal Navy HM-1 Merlin helicopters.
A spokeswoman for Public Works Minister Diane Finley says the government is looking at options "other" than the troubled Cyclones, which are years behind schedule and billions of dollars over-budget.
Finn said this latest development should put pressure on the company to deliver on its contract to deliver a total of 28 aircraft.
Sikorsky spokesman Paul Jackson said the company's singular focus remains on working closely with the Canadian government to deliver a world-class maritime helicopter.
"We have a dedicated team of senior executives, experienced engineers, technicians and support staff working with the Canadian government to deliver the world's most technologically advanced and capable maritime helicopter to the men and women serving in the Canadian Armed Forces," he said in an email statement.
"We continue to make strong and steady progress."
Jackson noted the initial training for Cyclone pilots and maintenance crews has started at Shearwater, a military base in Halifax.
Meanwhile, the New Democrats called on the federal government to work with Sikorsky to sort out their differences. The party's defence critic said it would be a mistake to cancel the contract especially when a draft independent evaluation of the program says it can be fixed.
"The Conservatives are as much to blame for this mess as the Liberals and they must take responsibility for their poor record on procurement," said Jack Harris.
"Let's not forget, in 2008 they paid Sikorsky an extra $117 million to change the design of the choppers, leading to yet further delay."
Sikorsky has publicly pressured the government to formally accept four test helicopters at Shearwater with the current configuration, which does not allow the aircraft to perform all of the missions expected.
The company promises to deliver software upgrades -- known as blocks -- on a regular basis until the helicopter is mission-ready.
That is something Ottawa has refused to do because it would be a tacit acknowledgment that the aircraft was actually in development and not off-the-shelf the way the 2003 tender advertised. Such an admission could open the door to lawsuits by competitors.
If the federal government were to pursue the AugustaWestland-built HM-1 Merlin, defence industry experts say the aircraft could be on the flight line and initially operating within 48 months of a contract signing.
Two of the big questions hanging over such a move would be whether Canadian air force officials would be happy with the current British operating system on the aircraft or whether they would demand changes.
The other concern, according to defence industry insiders, relates to whether AugustaWestland could deliver enough industrial offset benefits to Canadian companies to satisfy the federal government, since the Merlin is already in production and well-established outside of Canada.
So far, Sikorsky owes just under $86 million in penalties to the Canadian government.

[dmanton300]

Seems my jokey bit of banter on this very thread in January 2008 may have been more prophetic than even I suspected!

[cdnnighthawk]

The latest twists in Cyclone news:

Troubled helicopter deal has already cost Ottawa more than $1-billion


STEVEN CHASE

OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Sep. 12 2013, 6:00 AM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Sep. 12 2013, 6:05 AM EDT

The federal government has spent more than $1-billion on a delay-plagued acquisition of naval helicopters, sources say – a deal that Ottawa is now threatening to scrap.

Those sources say that if a contract goes unfulfilled, the government would launch a legal claim to recover monies paid, a standard practice in procurement deals. In the event the contract is cancelled, Sikorsky, the manufacturer of the Cyclone helicopters, would likely launch a countersuit.

The government has made milestone payments over the years on the procurement deal for 28 choppers, originally signed by the Liberal government in 2004.

Last week, Public Works Minister Diane Finley signalled Ottawa is contemplating pulling the plug on an acquisition the Auditor-General has estimated would total $5.7-billion when all costs, including setup, maintenance and training, are included. Ms. Finley said the government is shopping around for alternatives to the Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone.

Ottawa and Sikorsky have been knocking heads over the project. The federal government has refused to officially accept delivery of four “interim configured” Cyclones at a Canadian Armed Forces Base in Nova Scotia on the grounds they do not meet contracted requirements.

But while she’s threatening to scrap the purchase, Ms. Finley’s office and her department refuse to discuss how much money Ottawa has already poured into the acquisition. The minister’s office forwarded a question about expenditures to the department and the bureaucracy avoided answering it, saying only that the choppers don’t yet pass muster.

“The government expects suppliers to meet their contractual obligations and Canada will not accept the helicopters until contractual requirements are met,” Public Works spokesman Pierre-Alain Bujold said. “The helicopter is not compliant at this time.”

Public Works also declined to explain in what respects Sikorsky has fallen short of contract terms. A 2010 Auditor-General’s report said Ottawa “understated the complexity of configuring this helicopter,” and noted that while the Defence Department treated the procurement as an off-the-shelf purchase, it was far from that. “This will result in an aircraft that never existed before.”

Should the Conservative government scrap this purchase of Cyclone choppers, it would be the latest in a line of pullbacks on headache-prone military procurements – from F-35 fighters to army trucks to supply ships.

An independent evaluation of the contract conducted for Public Works has not yet been released, but excerpts of the report obtained by CBC last week make it appear as though Ottawa is being advised to relax the requirements of the helicopter deal. It reportedly urges Ottawa to “sacrifice less important requirements in order to deliver relevant capability” to the Royal Canadian Air Force.

A spokesman for Sikorksy declined to discuss how much money Ottawa has spent for the acquisition, but said the manufacturer’s “singular focus” is fulfilling the contract.

Paul Jackson said Sikorsky has another five “flight-ready” Cyclones at a secure New York facility awaiting transfer to Canada. The four currently at Canadian Forces Base Shearwater are being used for initial pilot, aircrew and maintenance training.

He said Sikorksy stands ready to work with Ottawa on a “pragmatic approach” that could speed things up. “We are in ongoing discussions with the government regarding delivery schedules and the best way to expedite them.”

The Canadian government recently sent a team to Britain to consider the Royal Navy’s Merlin helicopters. This service branch recently received upgraded Merlin Mk2 helicopters.

Another chopper maker, AgustaWestland, publicly appealed to Ottawa this week to consider its AW101 helicopter instead. Its CH-149 Cormorant is used by the Forces for air-sea rescue.

[cdnnighthawk]

Cyclone chopper technical concerns are potential 'show stoppers'

Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
Published Thursday, September 12, 2013 4:36PM EDT


OTTAWA -- Canadian air force engineers and flight-certification officials are grappling with serious concerns related to the electronics aboard the CH-148 Cyclone helicopters that are supposed to replace the geriatric Sea Kings.
That's the word from defence sources with intimate knowledge of the troubled program.
The federal government has refused to accept four test helicopters, currently parked at the Canadian Forces facility in Shearwater, N.S., on the basis they are "non-compliant" -- and most of the public explanation has related to software issues.
But the sources say there's concern that delicate flight systems, including a computer that runs the engines, are not sufficiently shielded against powerful electromagnetic waves, such as those produced by military-grade radar on frigates.
The interference has the potential of blanking out the digital instruments and possibly shutting down the engines.
The directorate of air worthiness at National Defence issued a restricted flight certificate in July and imposed restrictions on the helicopter's operations specifically because of so-called E-3 concerns -- electromagnetic compatibility, electromagnetic vulnerability and electromagnetic interference.
"Each of them are potential show-stoppers," said one source, who asked for anonymity.
"The vulnerability depends on the frequency and the strength of the signal. You have the potential of losing your instruments and not knowing where you are, and having to take visual cues from outside your aircraft to get down safely."
The Cyclone, meant to replace 50-year-old CH-124 Sea Kings, was cleared to fly within sight of the ground only during daylight hours as part of a long-delayed flight test program that was to have been carried out last month in Nova Scotia.
It also cannot fly over water because of separate, unresolved concerns about the flotation system.
The Conservative government signalled last week it is examining "other" options to the Sikorsky-built helicopter, which is five years behind schedule and overbudget.
Debate within the military test community has revolved around whether the electromagnetic issue is a fatal blow to the program, since the Cyclone's design was based on a less-rugged civilian variant.
"The aircraft was not designed from the ground up with this kind of shielding in mind," said the source. "Military aircraft, the skin of military aircraft, are sometimes embedded with a fine copper screen or mesh to prevent the intrusion of electromagnetic interference."
There are potential fixes, according to several defence sources.
One solution could involve retroactively installing screens around sensitive electronics, but that could add as much as 136 kilograms to the weight of the helicopter. That worries engineers who have long been concerned whether the Cyclone's engine is powerful enough to comfortably lift its existing weight.
Both Sikorsky and National Defence were asked to comment on the technical concerns, and given specific detailed questions.
"Our contractual agreement with the Canadian government precludes us from publicly discussing technical aspects of the program," Sikorsky spokesman Paul Jackson responded in an email. "Since your questions pertain to such aspects, I will have to decline to comment on them."
Public Works, which manages the contract on behalf of Defence, ducked the issue.
"The government expects suppliers to meet their contractual obligations and Canada will not accept the helicopters until contractual requirements are met," Annie Trepanier, the manager of media relations at Public Works said in an email.
"The government of Canada continues to work with Sikorsky in respect to the contract."
The National Defence website says the aircraft is built with an aluminum frame to withstand high-intensity radio frequencies, but those are only one form of electromagnetic energy.
Defence expert Michael Byers, of the University of British Columbia, documented the Conservative government's struggles with the Cyclones in a report earlier this year.
The public deserves straight answers about the $5.7-billion program, he said.
"At some point, someone should say enough is enough," said Byers. "The question is, when are they going to stop messing around and deliver a highly functioning maritime helicopter for the men and women of the Canadian Forces?"
The Cyclones were supposed to be on the flight line in 2008, but Sikorsky has delivered only a handful of choppers for testing.
Former auditor general Sheila Fraser trashed the program a few years ago in a report that set out in painstaking detail how Paul Martin's Liberal government agreed to buy the Cyclones, even though the military version had not been developed.
The theme cropped up again last week in a leaked independent report that the Harper government commissioned. The analysis said the helicopters were essentially still in development and the federal government should attempt to salvage program within 90 days.
The air force recently sent a team to look at the runner up in the 2003-04 competition, the EW-1 Merlin, and a Public Works official said they are considering aircraft "other" than the Cyclone.
Byers said cancelling the program might actually boost the political stature of the Conservatives.
"The Cyclone was selected by a Liberal government and they have the political room to say, we tried, but the fundamental flaw in this procurement was just too serious," said Byers, who ran for the federal NDP in 2008.

[dmanton300]

All gone quiet on the Canadian front. Is no news good news for Sikorsky I wonder?

[SansAnhedral]

Canada mulls Cyclone alternatives (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/canada-mulls-cyclone-alternatives-391252/)

Canada mulls Cyclone alternatives
Print
By: DOMINIC PERRY LONDON

Canada's purchase of maritime helicopters for its air force has lurched from bad to worse with the revelation that it may abandon its existing deal with Sikorsky and reopen the acquisition process.

The US airframer in 2004 won a $1.8 billion deal to supply 28 CH-148 Cyclones – a militarised and marinised version of its commercial S-92 – to the Royal Canadian Air Force. However, Sikorsky has been consistently unable to produce a helicopter that is acceptable to Ottawa. Deliveries of the final versions of the Cyclone were due to start in June 2012.

Four CH-148s produced to an interim standard are stationed at the air force's 12 Wing Shearwater base. However, no flight activities are taking place with the aircraft.

Procurement body Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) says: "The government expects suppliers to meet their contractual obligations, and Canada will not accept the helicopters until contractual requirements are met.

"Sikorsky has yet to deliver contractually compliant helicopters to Canada."

Ottawa has already levied fines of $88.6 million on Sikorsky, which it intends to offset against payments due under a support contract for sustainment of the helicopters.

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=48215

However, the US manufacturer could face the ultimate sanction of being dismissed from the contract entirely. PWGSC has already tasked an external consultant to report on "the viability" of the Cyclone programme – in other words, whether Sikorsky will ever be able to deliver fully compliant aircraft.

"The review by the consultant is not yet finalised," says PWGSC. "Upon completion the government will carefully consider the recommendations as well as consider all options, to ensure we protect taxpayers' interests and get the right helicopter for our men and women in uniform."

But other manufacturers are already circling. Anglo-Italian airframer AgustaWestland is keen to offer its AW101, should the competition be rerun. It says: "AgustaWestland understands the government of Canada is considering an alternate solution to the CH-148 Cyclone for the Royal Canadian Air Force maritime helicopter replacement programme.

"Events in Canada in recent years have clearly demonstrated the AW101 is still the only helicopter which remains compliant and true to all the [original] requirements."

AgustaWestland was victorious with the AW101 in an earlier contest for the requirement, but that programme was cancelled in 1993.

And to add even more weight to AgustaWestland's argument, an earlier variant of the rotorcraft is already in service with the air force, operating search and rescue missions as the CH-149 Cormorant.

Canada's need for new maritime helicopters is becoming ever-more pressing as its fleet of Sikorsky CH-124 Sea Kings marks a half-century of service this year.

Sikorsky was not immediately available to comment.

[Aussierob]

CBC News Story

Cyclone helicopter rivals meet with federal officials - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cyclone-helicopter-rivals-meet-with-federal-officials-1.1913485)

[Ian Corrigible]

Hard to reconcile this:

Canada eyes defense procurement overhaul (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131011/DEFREG02/310110007/Canada-Eyes-Defense-Procurement-Overhaul)

with this:

Canada may boost SAR fleet with former US presidential helicopters (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/canada-may-boost-sar-fleet-with-former-us-presidential-helicopters-391284/)

The VH-71s are not in a flyable condition, [the DND] says, noting that "to bring these helicopters to an airworthy SAR configuration would be a major undertaking".

No s**t!

I/C

[Matthew Parsons]

I/C,

I'm not sure what your point is. The first article is about a government process to purchase equipment, the second is about airworthiness certification. Nearly unrelated.

The effort involved in getting any aircraft set up for a specific role includes the obvious inclusion of necessary mission kits (relatively easy) and setting up the support organization (can be very difficult). The VH-71s are a considerably different design and will need different manuals, different training, different parts. Establishing airworthiness may also become a player in that not all of the CH149 certification data may be valid for the VH-71.

[Ian Corrigible]

Matthew,

The point was the irony of the DND considering something as complex as a rebuild of one or more VH-71s to CH-149 specs, at the same time as attempting to fix a procurement system "burdened with inefficiencies and unnecessary delays and costs." The DN article only listed a few of the recent program SNAFUs, others including the Victoria-class SSKs and the Joint Support Ship Project.

Personally I doubt that the VH-71-to-CH-149 conversion idea will progress: aside from the fact that the aircraft were acquired for the very real need to address the CH-149's low (<50%) operational availability (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/161198-us-presidential-helicopter-bid-result-16.html#post4517273), I doubt that any of the airframes are in much of a state to be rebuilt, given that IMP has been cannibalizing (http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/05/05/parts-already-being-removed-from-presidential-helicopters-to-be-used-in-rcaf-cormorants-will-that-jam-up-any-plan-to-try-to-fly-the-planes-for-sar/) them for over two years (http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=75383).

The "We can rebuild them...we have the technology!" idea has actually been floated (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/305560-canada-cormorant-cyclone-thread-4.html#post6725157) since the assets were originally acquired, but the lack of any airworthiness cert is likely to prove a major obstacle. The DND has already come under fire for the existing compatibility issues regarding the multi-variant Leopard 2 MBT force, so its appetite for opening a similar Pandora's box with the VH-71s may be limited.

I/C

[Viper 7]

Smaller Sea King replacements would mean big changes to navy - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/smaller-sea-king-replacements-would-mean-big-changes-to-navy-1.2075359)

[meanttobe]

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2013/02/Worst%20Procurement%20in%20History.pdf

[SansAnhedral]

Government expected to give Sikorsky another shot at delivering Cyclone helicopters (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Government+expected+give+Sikorsky+another+shot+delivering+Cy clone+helicopters/9089670/story.html)

Government expected to give Sikorsky another shot at delivering Cyclone helicopters


BY DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN OCTOBER 27, 2013



STORYPHOTOS ( 1 )

Government expected to give Sikorsky another shot at delivering Cyclone helicopters

A Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone conducts test flights with HMCS Montreal in Halifax harbour in this 2010 photo. Documents obtained by the Citizen under the Access to Information law, show that the Canadian government and Sikorsky reached a deal in principle in January 2012 on interim helicopters. Fully-compliant versions might be delivered in 2015.
Photograph by: ANDREW VAUGHAN , THE CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA — Department of National Defence officials are expecting the government to once again give a U.S. aerospace firm another chance to deliver aircraft to replace the military’s aging Sea King helicopters, according to DND documents.

DND officials are waiting for Public Works and Government Services Canada to OK the necessary changes that would see the acceptance of interim Cyclone helicopters from aircraft manufacturer Sikorsky.

The company was supposed to deliver the Cyclones to the Canadian military starting in November 2008. Deliveries of all 28 aircraft, to replace the air force’s Sea Kings, were to be completed by early 2011. But Sikorsky has yet to turn over a single helicopter to Canada and the $5-billion project has been saddled with various problems.

Instead, Sikorsky is offering to provide Canada with what the firm is calling interim helicopters; aircraft not fully outfitted with all of the necessary equipment. It would then deliver fully-compliant aircraft starting in 2015.

Senior government officials, including deputy ministers at DND and Public Works, have been meeting regularly since December 2011 with Sikorsky representatives to pave the way for the delivery of the interim helicopters, according to the DND briefing notes from December 2012 and February and March 2013.

Publicly, the Conservative government has taken a hard-line — stating that it won’t accept the interim helicopters because they don’t meet specifications. Government officials also leaked out details to the news media this summer about the possibility of buying a different helicopter and scrapping the Cyclones.

Behind the scenes, however, it was a different story.

The March 2013 documents, obtained by the Citizen under the Access to Information law, pointed out that the government and Sikorsky reached a deal in principle in January 2012 on interim helicopters.

That agreement was to be dealt with through another contract amendment, noted the DND briefing prepared by maritime helicopter project official Doug Baker and Assistant Deputy Minister for Materiel John Turner.

Both DND and Sikorsky had also worked out measures to address unexpected minor delays for those deliveries. “Public Works is expected to advise Sikorsky of the pre-conditions for further amendment to the contract,” the DND documents noted.

Public Works has already amended the Cyclone contract twice before to give Sikorsky more time to deliver the aircraft, but the firm missed both of those amended deadlines.

Public Works spokesman Pierre-Alain Bujold sent an email pointing out that the government is not engaged in “contract negotiations” with Sikorsky on a new deal. “The Government of Canada is not engaged, has not been engaged, and is not starting to be engaged in contract negotiations with Sikorsky,” the email stated.

But industry sources say there are indeed discussions underway. The DND documents indicate that government officials were concerned that only specific words be used in public to describe the ongoing meetings with Sikorsky.

“Public Works reaffirmed to Sikorsky that the dialogue with the government must be characterized as ‘discussions’ vice ‘negotiations,’ ” the documents noted.

In late June, then-Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose accused Sikorsky of not living up to its contract. She said that the interim helicopters did not meet air force requirements and the government was not going to accept those aircraft.

Again the DND documents tell a different story.

“Steady progress has been made towards delivery of the Interim Maritime Helicopters, and a realistic schedule has been developed,” one of the briefings noted.

“We will continue to support Public Works and Government Services efforts to secure an acceptable agreement to enable delivery of the Interim Maritime Helicopter.”

Sikorsky spokesman Paul Jackson said the firm is working closely with the Canadian government and making progress in completing the Cyclone program.

Sikorsky has delivered four Cyclones to a Nova Scotia base, but they still remain property of the firm.

In the summer, the Conservative government announced it would allow pilots and technicians to train on those Cyclone helicopters, but said they would not accept ownership of the choppers because they don’t meet the air force’s requirements.

Neither DND nor Public Works could explain the reasoning behind allowing air crews to train on the Cyclones even though the government says the aircraft are unacceptable.

Whats that old quote about insanity as doing the same thing releatedly expecting different results...

[dmanton300]

Here at the Yeovil site you can still find many lockers with 23 year old stickers on them saying "EH-101, the right helicopter for Canada" I'm thinking of having an amendment sticker made so I can update them to read "STILL the right helicopter for Canada"! :}

[widgeon]

I wonder what the WG30 stickers said ( I was there 1972 to 81).

[meanttobe]

Decision Still Not Made On The Next Step For The Cyclone Helicopter Program Says Public Works Minister Finley | Ottawa Citizen (http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/10/28/decision-still-not-made-on-the-next-step-for-the-cyclone-helicopter-program-says-public-works-minister-finley/)

[meanttobe]

Here at the Yeovil site you can still find many lockers with 23 year old
stickers on them saying "EH-101, the right helicopter for Canada" I'm thinking
of having an amendment sticker made so I can update them to read "STILL the
right helicopter for Canada"!

Interesting concept considering this report. Although the report is 5 yrs old. This may have changed since the purchase of the US Presidental airframes.

http://www.informs-sim.org/wsc08papers/142.pdf

[dmanton300]

I wonder what the WG30 stickers said ( I was there 1972 to 81).

"WG30 - The Lynx ate all the pies"

[cdnnighthawk]

Here is the latest news on the subject of "the right helicopter for Canada":

DND knew Cyclones might not measure up, red flagged troubles in 2004:...



Nov 03 2013 17:15:00 - Source: The Canadian Press

DND knew Cyclones might not measure up, red flagged troubles in 2004: documents
By Murray Brewster

THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA _ Canadian air force evaluators warned nearly a decade ago that the CH-148 Cyclone helicopter might not measure up in terms of engine performance, acoustic noise and its ability to resist electronic interference, The Canadian Press has learned.

Previously unreleased National Defence reports that date back to September 2004, recently viewed by CP, cite a litany of concerns about Sikorsky's plan to convert its existing S-92 helicopter for maritime and military missions.

The highly technical appraisals were conducted by a team of dozens of air force engineers before then-prime minister Paul Martin awarded what was at the time a $1.8-billion contract.

Yet, despite the concerns and the fact that some aspects of Sikorsky's plan were declared ``non-compliant,'' the bid was allowed to proceed based on the assumption the company would be able to overcome the existing problems.

The red flags that were set down by engineers, based on some 475 different evaluation criteria, proved prescient in identifying major issues that have plagued and ultimately delayed the program to the point where the Harper government is now considering scrapping it.

Nonetheless, the program has progressed significantly since the evaluation documents were first produced nearly 10 years ago, Paul Jackson, a spokesman for the U.S. aircraft maker, said Sunday.

``Sikorsky has either demonstrated ready solutions or fully resolved any technical issues raised in early technical reports,'' Jackson said in an email.

``The CH-148 Cyclone is the world's most advanced maritime helicopter, bar none. We continue to make solid progress toward completing this program and delivering unrivalled capability to the Canadian Forces.''

Officials from the Department of National Defence did not respond to a detailed series of written questions provided Friday about the technical reports, as well as the possible implications of scrapping the deal.

The Harper government, which is looking at other helicopters, is expected to decide later this month whether to continue with the program.

In terms of the evaluation of the Cyclone engine's airworthiness, the reports show the company was given the benefit of the doubt in 2004 since it had not yet built a military version of the aircraft.

"Sikorsky did not provide some of the (proof of certification) material as required,'' said the evaluation. "However, the material presented is generally judged to meet the intent of the (Maritime Helicopter Requirement Specifications) requirement.''

Evaluators were skeptical about the amount of testing hours devoted to the engine, and rated the risk to the bid as "medium'.'

Years later, however, the issue resurfaced when it became clear the heavier military requirements made the Cyclones sluggish and less efficient in the air. In 2010, Sikorsky announced it would upgrade the engine to a more powerful model, the CT7-8A7, and the Harper government agreed to spend an additional $117 million to support the plan.

Evaluators also raised questions about the helicopter's ability to stay airborne in the event of a catastrophic loss of oil. The report noted that the S-92 "failed on the initial test and did not meet the 30-minute'' run-dry requirement _ something that would become significant in 2009 with the crash of an S-92 off Newfoundland that killed 17 oil workers and flight crew.

A Transportation Safety Board investigation concluded that two of three titanium studs that secure the oil filter bowl assembly to the helicopter's main gearbox sheared off mid-flight. The board's final report said the resulting loss of oil pressure was one of a "complex web'' of factors that contributed to the crash.

It also recommended that all Sikorsky S-92 helicopters be able to run without oil in their main gearboxes for 30 minutes.

Defence sources recently questioned the Cyclone's ability to withstand intense electromagnetic fields, the kind generated by military-grade radar. In 2004, air force engineers raised questions about the interference, which has the potential to blank out instruments.

"The (High Intensity Radiated Fields) has still not been rectified to match up with the (Maritime Helicopter Requirement
Specifications),'' one of the evaluators wrote on Sept. 8 2004.

Since Sikorsky had not yet converted the helicopter to military specifications, it acknowledged the government would have to trust it to meet the requirement.

"The bidder has stated here that the testing cannot be completed until final aircraft assembly, at a proper site (in this case Patuxent River, Maryland, USA or Canadian equivalent).''

The evaluation report also raised questions about acoustic noise and the Cyclone's ability to land and take off from the pitching deck of a warship at sea.

In some cases, Sikorsky told National Defence it would provide more information after the contract was signed, leading one evaluator to note that "it was up to DND management to decide if DND is ready to accept the risk of not having a (basis of compliance) as clearly defined as possible before signing a contract with the winning bidder.''

After Sikorsky won the contract, rival bidder AgustaWestland cried foul, citing politics: 10 years before the Martin government, Jean Chretien's Liberals cancelled a contract with the company to buy EH-101 helicopters. In 2004, the company offered up the AW-101 _ a variant of the original, but still close enough to be politically uncomfortable.

Alan Williams, the senior defence bureaucrat in charge of the Cyclone purchase at the time, said AgustaWestland's bid was "non-compliant'' and dismissed as nonsense any suggestion that the political fix was in for Sikorsky.

"They blew it. They were clearly non-compliant and they know it,'' Williams said in an interview with The Canadian Press. "They didn't do a good enough job.''

Officials from AgustaWestland were not immediately available for comment Sunday.

What exactly the company did wrong, Williams was not prepared to say, but he insisted the Liberal government of the day never exerted pressure on him to favour one bid over another.

He acknowledged the concerns presented in the pre-qualification report, but noted that it was just the first kick at the tires.

"Unless it's a really, really black and white thing, in the pre-qualification you're not going to eliminate people.''

Williams said he pressured engineers in a number of closed-door meetings to assure him that Sikorsky could make the leap from civilian to maritime military helicopter.

"They said: 'It's not a slam dunk.' But the thinking was that it could be done, and so I didn't feel we didn't have cause to rule them non-compliant even though I knew that this wasn't a slam dunk.''

Williams acknowledged that he could be blamed for "picking something that turns out to be non-deliverable.''

He left the defence purchasing office shortly after the contract award, but added that had he been there in 2006 when it became apparent the program was in trouble, he would have recommended it be cancelled.

"If the government thought the contract was non-deliverable, it did the one thing it should never have done, it let (Sikorsky) off the hook,'' Williams said. "It would have been much smarter to do what they might do now'' and cancel it.

When former defence minister Peter MacKay described the Cyclones as the "worst'' procurement in government history, "quite frankly he made it into the worst procurement,'' Williams added.

The Cyclones were supposed to be on the flight line in 2008, but Sikorsky has delivered only a handful of choppers for testing.

The federal government has refused to accept those helicopters, currently parked at the Canadian Forces facility in Shearwater, N.S., on the basis they are "non-compliant.''

Former auditor general Sheila Fraser trashed the program a few years ago in a report that set out in painstaking detail how Martin's Liberal government agreed to buy what are essentially undeveloped helicopters.

The theme cropped up again last month in a leaked independent report that the Harper government commissioned. The analysis said the helicopters were essentially still in development and the federal government should attempt to salvage the program within 90 days.

So far, the federal government claims it is owed $88.6 million by Sikorsky in penalties for contract violations.

[heli1]

" The worlds most advanced maritime helicopter?" Easy to say that when none are in service and you only have one customer!

[cdnnighthawk]

Apparently, the Canadian Press was able to reach AgustaWestland for comment overnight because the following appeared in a revised story published in this morning's papers:

Alan Williams, the senior defence bureaucrat in charge of the Cyclone purchase at the time, said AgustaWestland’s bid was “non-compliant” and dismissed as nonsense any suggestion that the political fix was in for Sikorsky.
“They blew it. They were clearly non-compliant and they know it,” Williams said in an interview with The Canadian Press. “They didn’t do a good enough job.”
Williams’ comment was met with a firm denial by AgustaWestland, which said in a statement late Sunday that “at no point did the Government of Canada declare that the AW101 was non-compliant.”
“The aircraft met all of the performance and equipment requirements of the original Request for Proposals, then and now, and Mr. Williams knows this,” the statement said.
What exactly the company did wrong, Williams was not prepared to say, but he insisted the Liberal government of the day never exerted pressure on him to favour one bid over another.

[dmanton300]

Alan Williams certainly seems to have the kind of 20/20 hindsight only a beaurocrat could possess doesn't he?!? And I love Sikorsky's "best bar none" line! It neatly manages to ignore the fact that they've yet to actually deliver a single useable helicopter. So far it's the best at nothing, because it doesn't exist!

[Thomas coupling]

What concerned me from day one was this: Why on God's earth does a country like Canada need or want the most advanced rotorcraft out there? More specifically: why does it need to be fly by wire for God's sake??? Leave cutting edge research to mega rich naive countries like KSA or USA and learn from their mistakes...but Canada...c'mon. THUS you have (to a greater extent) brought this on yourselves have you not? You reap what you sow:{
No wonder Sikorsky are struggling with EM interference and shielding???

My biggest worry however is reserved for the government (not the military - who are probably one of the most professional services I have had the honour to serve with). The government,s history of procurement is littered with dreadful decision making and choices. My fear is that they (having been bitten by the 101 and now the 92) will go wildly off into another direction and buy something completely inappropriate for the task in hand.
Fingers crossed - they will take a deep breath, put the Sikorsky debacle to rest and look and learn across the military environ and pick something tried and tesed yet relatively modern. Perhaps even the S92 without FBW??????

[dmanton300]

How were they bitten by the 101?

[cdnnighthawk]

In response to dmanton300 -- I agree with you. In fact, the inside joke in Canada is that the aircraft is actually called the Sikorsky Unicorn (i.e. mythical).

In response to Tom Coupling, Canada never requested the technology (eg FBW) that Sikorsky proposed. Sikorsky proposed FBW because the handling qualities of the S-92 as assessed by AETE test pilots in March 2003 were determined to be unacceptable for shipborne operations. The Sikorsky proposal in 2003 to use a new FBW approach for Canada's MH requirement duped everyone here into believing that Sikorsky could/would deliver a capable shipborne helicopter. As it turns out, the unfolding incompatibility of the Cyclone FBW flight control system with the hauldown system is causing a lot of grief. This is the main reason (not the only one) why Cyclone ship trials are still incomplete.

[Thomas coupling]

Dmanton are you serious?? Jean chretien saw to the demise of the EH101 order in 1993. Where have you been?
The a/c never got off the starting blocks because of spares and reliability issues and only a few slipped past the politicians to replace the knackered old labrador. It cost the Canadian public a massive fortune in penalty payments.

While we are on the subject of procurement disasters, what about the F35 order?

[dmanton300]

Dmanton are you serious?? Jean chretien saw to the demise of the EH101 order in 1993. Where have you been?
The a/c never got off the starting blocks because of spares and reliability issues and only a few slipped past the politicians to replace the knackered old labrador. It cost the Canadian public a massive fortune in penalty payments.

While we are on the subject of procurement disasters, what about the F35 order?

Yes, I'm VERY aware of all that, but your wording makes it appear that somehow AgustaWestland or the -101 were somehow to blame, when in fact the Canadians weren't bitten by the 101 so much as repeatedly shot themselves in the foot over it, finally appearing to get bored of the foot shooting and actually placing the gun at their temple with the S-92/CH-148 debacle.

As for the spares and reliability issues, one was a direct result of the other. As the independent report on the CH-149 fleet's ability to operate successfully made clear, actual problems "on the line" were and are rare, because of the -101's inherent reliability, it's in the deeper servicing and maintenance that things go south because of a:/insufficent spares (all that needs is money!) b:/insufficent airframes for the expected availability rates (see a for answer). The Portuguese suffered exactly the same way with their -101 SAR fleet, and for much the same reasons. What I'm not aware of is how much of that issue is from the vendor promising a spares and support package for a price that is competitive but unable to meet the demands of the customer, or the customer (in this case the DND?) cheaping out and not being prepared to pay for a package that was suitable for the job in spite of warnings in the first place? Perhaps others know more? Because if it's the first assertion then the vendor has a clear culpability and responsibility for availability issues, and if it's the second then the Canadians bit themselves, none else did.

So yes, I'm totally aware of the history of the Canadians and the EH-101 (the helicopter having been a huge part of my working life since 1986 when I was first apprenticed at the Yeovil site), I'm just seeking clarification on your assertion that it bit the Canadians, when it could be argued it was self inflicted?

[dangermouse]

I am afraid TC has his timings wrong.

When the 101 order for Canada was cancelled in 1993 there weren't any in service anywhere in the world, just the 9 PP prototypes. The RN had the first declared IOC for any service and that was in 1998 so until that time no availability data existed. The maturity proving programme only started in summer 1998.

In 1993 the aircraft was still in development (Type Certification was 1994, first prod aircraft flew in late 1995) so any decision to cancel a contract could only have been made on;

1) Technical reasons such as that that the aircraft didn't meet the spec (never to the best of my knowledge stated as the reason)
2) Budgetry reasons ('we can't afford them', which would be at least be a credible reason and may have been the motivation for Chretians attitude to the aircraft)
3) Poltically motivated reasons (which seems to be the actual case for Chretians decision as it was one of his stated pre election policies, possibly based on 2) above).

The cost of penalty payments cannot be placed at the door of a supplier who was working to a fully signed and legally binding contract that they weren't in breach of. The Canadian Govt HAD to pay the penalty clauses because they cancelled the contract without due cause, I am sure that if there had been due cause the DND would have used it to avoid the payments.

The debacle over this procurement is entirely the Canadian Govts fault. By now, the aircraft as originally ordered would be like the RN aircraft and have been proven a mature type would be entering an upgrade programme to 'the latest technology'. Instead the poor line pilots are flying ancient aircraft with realistically NO firm timescales for anything like the similar capability being available, let alone 'the latest technology' promised by a supplier who has consistently managed to fail to meet every milestone set for it.

Monty Python could have written this script!

DM

[Thomas coupling]

Errm DM: Where is my timing wrong then? Is it 1993 when cancelled or was it 1993 when the order was cancelled? I believe it was 1993 in fact.
It was cancelled because of cost and politics, everyone knows that. BUT ever since the sole 15 airframes arrived out of an order of 50 originally, all those cabs have been dogged by reliability and spares issues.

[dmanton300]

The a/c never got off the starting blocks because of spares and reliability issues and only a few slipped past the politicians to replace the knackered old labrador. It cost the Canadian public a massive fortune in penalty payments.

That's where your timings are wrong. No aircraft were in service ANYWHERE at the time of cancellation, and any spares and reliability issues (addressed in my last post) lay well in the future - like a decade or so and in relation to a different procurement programme, and so is irrelevant in terms of the Chimo/Petrel cancellation, which was a political decision hiding behind a financial one. So yes, it was cancelled in 1993, but there were no reliability or spares aspects to it.

[cdnnighthawk]

Maybe this additional info might help to quell the dispute and further some understanding...

In 1998, Canada stupidly decided that it would outsource the In-Services-Support (ISS) for the Cormorant and also, that the OEM AgustaWestland (then-EHI) would be prohibited from bidding on the ISS contract (because it would have an advantage over other bidders).

To make a long story short, the lowest cost bidder was selected to provide the Cormorant ISS. This bidder (still in charge of Cormorant ISS btw) did not/has not committed a penny to the maintenance of an in-country inventory of Cormorant spares. Additionally, the ISS contractor selected by Canada was not the design authority (DA) for the 101 and, as anyone can imagine, had no authority or ability to make maintenance or support procedure changes without referring same back to the OEM for approval (a very time-consuming process).

The made-in-Canada Cormorant support calamity is why Canada has ever since (including for the Cyclone) demanded that the OEM (not a third party) be in charge of ISS.

[dmanton300]

Nighthawk, I found that report on Cormorant reliability and maintenance to be interesting reading . . . it seems to suggest that no blame for the issues (save for the cracking in the tail rotors) is attached to either the helicopter or the OEM, but is almost exclusively a fault of the procurement process, and over ambitious expectations of a fleet simply too small to do what has been asked of it in terms of basing.

[Shawn Coyle]

Chretien made the right decision but for the wrong reason!
The original EH-101 contract had (in my opinion) 'PROBLEM' written all over it in capital, bold, italic red ink.
The Air Force was going to accept the helicopters in Yeovil, fly them to Bristol, have them shipped across the Atlantic to Halifax harbor, fly them to Halifax International, hand them over to the prime contractor, who would them hand them over to the avionics installer, who would then install the government furnished avionics, and then hand them back to the prime contractor who would hand them back to the Air Force for acceptance. So if anything didn't work, the amount of finger pointing as to who was to blame would have taken a 10 armed Hindu deity.
But the 101 was the best machine for the mission as then defined.

[Thomas coupling]

Hi Shawn - beautifully put.....until the last sentence.
The 101 must possibly be the least financially effective SAR cab on the planet. To this very day it has proven time and time again to be the biggest white elephant every operator dreads.
One has to have deep pockets or a labotomy to pick the Merlin for ANYTHING let alone a SAR cab.

[cdnnighthawk]

I believe Mr. Coyles' very accurate description of the original situation was referring to the MH (NSA) portion of the original 1992 contract... the NSH portion was slightly less combobulated. At any rate, despite the support difficulties, the Canadian SAR Cormorant fleet's outstanding SAR record at extreme ranges and in some of the most dreadful conditions imaginable stands on its own. I find it impossible to agree with you that the 101 is a financially ineffective white elephant in the SAR role.

[Thomas coupling]

CD nighthawk: I question not the integrity of this might battleship. A colleague of mine crashed one during trials one night, straight into the sea at 90kts and escaped without a bruise:sad:
What I will question is this: how can anyone, even the military, justify spending upwards of 40 million pounds on one airframe when there are several others out there that are atleast as capable as the Merlin in every respect, that cost less than a quarter of this?
Massively over redundant systems, prohibitive carbon fibre repair procedures, hugely inflated repair down times for every hour airborne and ask the Canuks about spares :eek::eek::eek::mad:
People who even consider the 101 need their heads seeing to or are sublimely rich...

[Xmit]

Thomas I must say that, having spent a large proportion of my flying career operating over water and inhospitable terrain, I find the concept of 'massively over redundant systems' difficult to understand...........

[heli1]

What sort of chip does TC hold?
Th EH101 ditching he refers to was due to the rotor brake coming on in flight following a hydraulic leak I believe. Any lesser helicopter would have broken up!

[John Eacott]

CD nighthawk: I question not the integrity of this might battleship. A colleague of mine crashed one during trials one night, straight into the sea at 90kts and escaped without a bruise:sad:
What I will question is this: how can anyone, even the military, justify spending upwards of 40 million pounds on one airframe when there are several others out there that are atleast as capable as the Merlin in every respect, that cost less than a quarter of this?
Massively over redundant systems, prohibitive carbon fibre repair procedures, hugely inflated repair down times for every hour airborne and ask the Canuks about spares :eek::eek::eek::mad:
People who even consider the 101 need their heads seeing to or are sublimely rich...

TC: maybe you should read this from cdnnighthawk and reflect on the apparent reason for the troubles you are so scathingly blaming on the airframe? My bold:

Maybe this additional info might help to quell the dispute and further some understanding...

In 1998, Canada stupidly decided that it would outsource the In-Services-Support (ISS) for the Cormorant and also, that the OEM AgustaWestland (then-EHI) would be prohibited from bidding on the ISS contract (because it would have an advantage over other bidders).

To make a long story short, the lowest cost bidder was selected to provide the Cormorant ISS. This bidder (still in charge of Cormorant ISS btw) did not/has not committed a penny to the maintenance of an in-country inventory of Cormorant spares. Additionally, the ISS contractor selected by Canada was not the design authority (DA) for the 101 and, as anyone can imagine, had no authority or ability to make maintenance or support procedure changes without referring same back to the OEM for approval (a very time-consuming process).

The made-in-Canada Cormorant support calamity is why Canada has ever since (including for the Cyclone) demanded that the OEM (not a third party) be in charge of ISS.

[espresso drinker]

At least the AW101 has a true 30 minute run dry time!:E

All new models will have 'teething troubles', something to do with something known as the 'bath tub reliability curve'.

[espresso drinker]

If we're talking cost comparisons between the two aircraft, please can someone tell what it costs the operator when they 'lose' 17 passengers?

[espresso drinker]

Oh, and forgive me if I'm wrong the EH101 (now AW101) was a result of a military requirement for an extended range helicopter to operate from the back of a ship and find Russian, sorry enemy, subs.

Not a modification from a civil aircraft.

I also under that is very good at finding subs, ask the Americans. They were pretty pissed off when they couldn't hid their fish.

True, it's had it's technical issues. But now it's a mature aircraft and with the correct support package not doing too badly in the role for which it was intend.

[Xmit]

there are several others out there that are at least as capable as the Merlin in every respect, that cost less than a quarter of this?


TC, I'm interested to know which SAR (or maritime) rotary platforms match the AW101's unrefuelled radius of action - one of the key capabilities which I'm sure led to its selection by Canada and other nations (eg Portugal).

I understand that UK-based S92s need internal cabin-mounted tanks to exceed the Sea King's notional 240nm ROA (can any S92 operators out there confirm this?).

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

can someone tell what it costs the operator when they 'lose' 17 passengers?


Also could someone confirm how much the Cyclone debacle is costing the Canadians when you factor in life extensions for the Sea King, reverse-modifying ships to take the Sea King again instead of the Cyclone etc?

[Thomas coupling]

Xmit: Yes the SAR S92 will incorporate the internal tank (port side) and allow for a stretcher on top. But as you intimated - this will INCREASE the range the SeaKing could go to, so it is an "enhancement" of the Service.

Merlin/101: Point to ponder (irrespective of its capability as a SAR cab/heavy lift / police a/c (Japan) et al):

The damn thing cost >70hrs maintenance for every hour it flies in the military. So in civvy speak it still equates to atleast >40hrs maintenance for every 1hr flying. The maintenance costs are astronomical.

Who in their right mind would ever entertain such a financially suicidal option???
Why buy a Bentley when a Mondeo fits perfectly?

[tottigol]

Since we are talking about an airframe (CH-149) that's already in service, it seems the Canadians did make at least ONE correct choice, the fact that they've quickly squandered that good sense by outsourcing maintenance to a third party offsets those gains.
TC, let's stay focused on the fact that your pet aircraft has been offered by Sikorsky as an "easily adaptable" off-the-shelf platform and see where the costs and target in service times have ended up, while the 101 would have been a mature DEDICATED airframe in 2004 at a known cost and fairly reliable delivery and IOC dates.
Just to stay on course, what is the projected maintenance/flight hours for the Cyclones? Anyone?

[dangermouse]

Will be wrong, everyones always is! (including AW for the 101), given the mission kit and added compelxity any S92 data is useless

BTW Portuguese/Danish 101 ROA is 400 nm...., with room for a P3 crew after pickup 1/2 way, how much cabin space does S92 need to fill with fuel to get that range/capability?

nuff said!

DM

[dascanio]

TC: the one below is a press release, so, apart from some good PR, states anyway some facts...

____________________
09/04/13
AW101 completes challenging mid-Atlantic rescue

http://awintranet.agustawestland.local/irj/go/km/docs/awintranet/news/data/images/pressroom/EH101_Portugal_Csar_05.jpg
A Portuguese Air Force (PtAF) AW101 has successfully completed a challenging night-time rescue mission in the mid-Atlantic, coming to the aid of a Spanish sailor whose yacht had capsized.
The 360nm (670km) sortie demonstrated the long-range search and rescue capabilities of the AW101 and was the longest rescue mission conducted using the aircraft for a casualty in the sea. The PtAF had previously completed a 380nm rescue from a vessel. The Commanding Officer of 751 Squadron later paid tribute to the AW101, saying that the rescue was only possible because of its night-time and range capabilities.
Aircraft 19601 was called into action on February 3 following reports that solo yachtsman Javier Sanso had encountered difficulties while competing in the Vendee Globe round-the-world yacht race. Deploying from Lajes in the Azores, the crew embarked on a daunting 8.5 hour rescue that also involved a refuelling stop in Santa Maria before they could reach the scene of the incident.
The standard SAR configuration for the PtAF AW101 uses 3,000kg of fuel – enough for three hours’ cruise at 120kt plus 400-600kg of reserve fuel. For ultra long-range missions such as this one, the aircraft’s range can be extended through completely filling the internal tanks and by adding an internal ferry tank, holding about 900kg of fuel. The total fuel on board when departing Santa Maria was around 5,000kg and the helicopter was also stripped of all unnecessary equipment to reduce weight.
Conducting a search for the casualty in pitch black conditions, with no external reference points and completely on instruments, the crew eventually managed to locate Javier who was down to his final flare. Having dispensed this flare his last resort was to wave a handheld lantern to alert the crew to the position of his life raft.
With the aircraft low on fuel and time running out, he was recovered from the water suffering from the early effects of hypothermia but with no critical injuries. He was the flown back to the Azores for treatment in hospital.

The rescue also brought the number of lives saved by the AW101 since it entered service with the PtAF to 1,039.
PtAF operations are enabled by AgustaWestland's Full In Service Support (FISS) availability performance delivery system, which has fully supported the PtAF's operational needs for over 4 years. FISS successfully harmonises and integrates the management functions and functional outputs of the PtAF, AgustaWestland and key Portuguese suppliers to provide the necessary scheduled and corrective maintenance in addition to material and technical support.

________________________

... so, reading that AW101s in Portugal have already saved 1039 lives, at least they do not deserve to be called "damn things" ;)

[oldgrubber]

DM,
This is an extract from Sikorsky's own site

It can fly programmed search patterns for one
hour at 190 nautical miles (352 km) with standard
fuel and 345 nautical miles (639
km) with aux fuel. With standard
fuel the S92 helicopter can
rescue 2 survivors at 205 nautical miles (380 km) and ten at 180
nm (334 km). With the optional
auxiliary tanks installed these
distances expand out to 320 nm
(593 km) and 290 nm (537 km).

I think TC is a lost cause, he obviously has a rabid dislike of the Merlin and its derivatives.
I trained on them in 1998 and am still involved in their maintenace and what I can tell you is that a good support contract and a skilled workforce such as at Culd ensure the aircraft can meet all its tasking. I don't see the Seaking SAR boys gloating about how much work the Merlin guys have to do down here in sunny Cornwall and they often share a hardstanding.

As an engineer I'm very clear on how man hours are compiled for servicing and you shouldn't believe everything you read about the big bad Merlin and it's terrible serviceability. I fear that many of the past stories from operators who were still learning and dealing with immature supply chains and poor purchase and maintenance contracts; will be held up as empirical evidence of a "white elephant" by those who are probably nowhere near an operational Merlin today.


Cheers now

[Xmit]

Yes the SAR S92 will incorporate the internal tank (port side) and allow for a stretcher on top. But as you intimated - this will INCREASE the range the SeaKing could go to, so it is an "enhancement" of the Service


TC - I recall from visits to the ARCC that the Sea King had an ROA of 240nm, while the S92's was 250nm with its internal tank fitted - hardly a huge gain in capability. I know that it's useful to have somewhere to mount a stretcher but that's not a good reason to take up valuable space with an internal fuel tank. To my mind the S92 offers useful improvements over the the Sea King in terms of speed and its ability to operate in icing conditions; however, the 101 betters the Sea King - and the S92 for that matter - in just about every respect except cost (I agree it's an expensive option) and possibly downwash impact.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Why buy a Bentley when a Mondeo fits perfectly?


Err not sure the Canadian S-92 can be reasonably described as a Mondeo! Now I'm not a Ford aficionado, but I'm not aware of the Mondeo having an innovative and unproven control system, nor of years spent trying (and failing) to get it to a standard where it is fit for use.

[tottigol]

"...nor of years spent trying (and failing) to get it to a standard where it is fit for use."

That would make it a Chevrolet.

[dmanton300]

So, TC, Norway, rich or stupid?

[cdnnighthawk]

As opposed to my previous posts wherein I always attempted to provide some insight into reported rumours, this is different.

There are numerous stories today (unpublished/unconfirmed reports what I would normally consider to be nothing more than rumours) circulating here that the Canadian Cyclone contract is about to be cancelled for cause, if not today 29 Nov 2013, by early next week.

Does anyone have any further insight?