Canadian Sea King replacement update

[ZH844]

What a load of rubbish!!

Politics - that is why the S-92 won!

All this talk about capability, price, etc - all rubbish!

How did the S-92 fair in Gulf War 2? - oh it wasn't there.....
How many Canadian lives has the S-92 saved? - oh not yet flying in the SAR role!

The EH101 is in service and doing the job not just taking up space on the drawing board.

Nick, I have seen the contract requirements for this deal and good luck my old mucker cos' you and your company are going to need it! I would be careful with the comments as give it five years and you will be eating tons of humble pie!

The Canadians will see the EH101 - the next time George B decides to fly north for the weekend in his new chopper!!

See you in Washington Nick - and this time the best man will win!

[Lu Zuckerman]

A statement of fact.

Would you believe that at the onset of the EH-101 program the Italian Navy didn't want any part of the EH-101 and if they were forced to take it they wanted only two engines. They wanted Harriers in place of the EH-101.

[widgeon]

so we are now to believe that the independant company that reviewed the Statmement of Operational Requirements (SOR) was in the pay of Sikorsky !. Has EH101 yet won any competition for a ship borne aircraft ? , Denmark was SAR , the others have all chosen NH90 . I am surprised that more comment was not made when the NH90 was ruled non compliant . As for the requirement for 3 engines , has any one noticed that they don't make L1011 and DC10's anymore !.

[rjsquirrel]

Touchy Bunch!! I've had enough, try this out for size:

1) EH-101 is proven in service, my butt. Yep, and proven in accidents, guys. How about those five pesky crashes it has had (it lost 1/3rd of its prototype fleet, for pete's sake!) Look at the stats. It has an accident rate of about 11 per 100,000 hours, which makes it the most unsafe heli on the planet, ten times the accident rate a good navy experiences. Anybody out there have any stats on their country's heli operations? I think the world average for military ops is about 2 per 100,000 hours. Go ahead prove me wrong.

2) The EH-101 can't get itself off the ground very often. If I figure it correctly, most military helis get about 500 hours per year, so a 90 aircraft fleet of EH-101's should be gatherin time at about 45,000 hours every year. The whole fleet only has 45,000 hours, if the press reports about its massive service record are to be believed. Given that it has been building its fleet over the last 10 years, it seems that the typical EH-101/Cormorant/Merlin gets about 100 hours per year. Somebody out there give me some tail numbers that got more time than that last year, ok? Prove me wrong, all you wonder-boys!

3) Big press reports about running out of spare parts because the British military were too dumb to buy enough parts, so the EH's can't be flown enough. That's like the idiot who says his tire is flat because it doesn't have enough air! Its running through parts like it runs through petrol!

4) Its payload sucks. Lappos asked you guys to give him an empty weight, here it is - Nick, the Cormorant's are about 20,000 lbs fully stripped of all removable equipment (some brave Cormorant driver prove me wrong, post a weight sheet!!) At 20,000 lbs, it leave a putrid 12,190 pounds for fuel, crew and payload. One glance at the efficiency of a typical REAL heli shows that for a 20,000 lb empty weight the payload should be closer to 18,000 lb. It is a dog.

5) Yes, the S-92 is brand new, that's how all helicopters start out, I think, unless Noah had one on the ark. All you idiots who demand that only proven helis should be sold do not realize that you are saying "Don't bother making any new heli designs, thank you, because I am way too scared to buy one." Bulls**t, I say. Build me newer, safer, better ones, because the ones we have now are barely ok.

Lappos, post me some more funny stories, amuse me with the possibilities. I don't know if the S-92 will hack it, but hasn't Igor built one or two of those things before?

[Cyclic Hotline]

Different operations require different machines. Different countries will purchase different equipment for a multitude of reasons.

It doesn't necessarily make one bad if it is not selected, it is a selection process after all, and somewhere a decision will be reached and a purchase made.

The worst part, is the hype and misinformation that leads the selection process and the ready supply of "unidentified sources" that have followed every part of every EH-101 procurement. The only time this pitiful bleating ceased was when the entire EH-101 fleet was grounded (sorry, - not flying) and not ONE word was heard from anyone in that camp - not one word!

As soon as the procurement was sourced elsewhere, the "unidentified sources" sprang back into action pointing out that the the S-92 only had 2 engines, as opposed to 3 in the EH-101. I think this may have to go down in the history of helicopter aviation as the dumbest statement ever made by a manufacturer (sorry, unidentified source). There were others of equal comic value.

The entire way through the procurement, those "unidentified sources" fed the press a rash of stories about crashes, unreliability, breakdowns, parts shortages, etc. I'm not sure what part of Marketing 101 (sic) deals with insulting the ability of your customer to operate his existing equipment, or to make the correct choice in the next selection? Sadly, it fails entirely when it is being reviewed by other industry professionals.

I have had my own opinions (here on PPRuNe) on the early parts of the S92 programme and some other Sikorsky stuff, but I will give Sikorsky there due and they have succeeded admirably with this programme and I wish it every success.

On the contrary, having watched the marketing approach of EH Industries, I can confidently state that they will never have to worry about me as a customer. That is an aside anyway, as I don't believe that the EH-101 can ever compete in the commercial marketplace anyway (apparently, others believe the same thing).

Personally, I can't wait to get acquainted with the S-92 - something that should be happening soon. Interestingly, the commercial S-92 line is busy and has Customers - another claim that we are unlikely to hear about from those "unidentified sources"!

Congratulations to Sikorsky and the Canadian Government on a sound choice.

[Mikila1A]

All very interesting.

Nick,

When will the first civilian S-92 be in the air, and what I mean is certified to carry pax.

[RotorPilot]

Cyclic Hotline

On the contrary, having watched the marketing approach of EH Industries, I can confidently state that they will never have to worry about me as a customer. That is an aside anyway, as I don't believe that the EH-101 can ever compete in the commercial marketplace anyway (apparently, others believe the same thing).

I agree with you in this point. As a matter of fact this is one of the main differences between the two helicopters.

The EH101 is a MILITARY helicopter right from the beginning, designed to replace the Sea King with several MILITARY variants. I don't expect a big commercial hit from this helicopter because it was not intended to the commercial market.

The S92 is a CIVILIAN helicopter from which a military variant will be "extracted" (or built to military specs as they put it) sometime in the future. If it will come to the promised performances, that is something yet to be seen because none is flying.

So you are right when you expect the S92 to be competitive in the commercial market ITS MAIN PURPOSE and the only version flying so far. I expect it to eat up a good chunk of the offshore oil business, gradually displacing the Puma, simply because the PUMA as well as the COUGAR and MH90 are also a military helicopters. During its development phase only MILITARY concerns were taken into consideration, not commercial ones.

We all know that military European designed helicopters are well known for overpowered, de-rated turbines, to be able to fly high and hot with all temps within “green” range, unlike many American counterparts that are well know for exactly the opposite.

Main rotors are 5 or 6 blades unlike the Americans that even fly on only two, something that never happened in Europe.

The three engines are also there for a reason. It’s the only way to comply with one of the original specs of the bid “full survivability with the loss of one engine (that at a certain point was taken out).

We all saw this year in Afghanistan a Sikorsky MH53 Pave Low “the most powerful helicopter in the world” as they say, (2 engines only ) go down with the loss of the machine and almost all hands on board just because ONE engine stalled 5 minutes after take-off due to the high and hot conditions. If it was a 101 it would have survived the situation.
That’s why MILITARY helicopters designed to fulfil the complex and demanding requirements of military operations are more expensive to operate. It’s the MISSION, the CAPABILITY and the SAFETY of the helicopter and its crew and paxs that counts NOT the $$$. They are NOT designed to be "cheaper" or “cost effective” or “economic”. Making military decisions thinking in COMMERCIAL terms, or just in terms of $$$, sooner or later will COSTS LIVES that are priceless.

Let's see how a third engine is important:

Officials release Pave Low accident report

3/11/2004 - HURLBURT FIELD, Fla. (AFPN) -- An accident investigation board determined that failure of the No. 2 engine because of compressor stall, failure of the auxiliary fuel tanks to jettison and the uneven terrain of the landing area caused an MH-53 Pave Low helicopter to crash Nov. 23. The board released its findings March 10.

The MH-53, assigned to the 20th Special Operations Squadron, crashed nine miles east of Bagram, Afghanistan, while supporting Operation Mountain Resolve.

Four of the six crewmembers on board, and one U.S. Army passenger died in the accident.

The accident investigation board also cited several contributing factors to the crash. One of these factors was the subsequent failure of the No. 1 engine when the demands of the high altitude and high-gross weight caused an over-temperature and compressor stall. Insufficient written guidance on checking the auxiliary fuel tank jettison system was also cited.

The investigation board comprised helicopter systems experts, medical, legal and aircrew advisers. (Courtesy of Air Force Special Operations Command News Service)

Yeah but we all know that those that make the decisions are not those that will have to risk their own lives when duty calls...


TORONTO STAR - 2004 July 27

By choosing the Sikorsky, the Liberals don't have to admit they were wrong to cancel original contract

Debate swirls around choice of helicopter

Blatantly political

THE GLOBE AND MAIL - 2004 July 27

The long, tortuous path of helicopter politics

THE GLOBE AND MAIL - 2004 July 26

By DANIEL LEBLANC
From Monday's Globe and Mail
Ottawa — The federal government concealed the fact last week that it was forced to buy Sikorsky helicopters to replace its fleet of Sea Kings after the only other competitor in the $5-billion race had been previously disqualified on technical grounds, sources say.
Instead of saying that the contract had been awarded to the only company that was still standing, government officials made it seem as if the contract had been a two-way race to the end.
The revelation that Team Cormorant was quietly thrown out of the competition earlier this year is the latest twist in the ongoing saga that is now expected to be played out before the courts.

Mr. Nick Lappos

This procurement was a tough one for the guys who had the decision, they faced adverts from one side that insisted that they just drop the competition and pick them. Those ads created the myth of the watered down requirements.

Was it so ??? Just read below how things really were.

Ottawa forced to buy Sikorsky, sources say

By DANIEL LEBLANC
From Monday's Globe and Mail

Ottawa — The federal government concealed the fact last week that it was forced to buy Sikorsky helicopters to replace its fleet of Sea Kings after the only other competitor in the $5-billion race had been previously disqualified on technical grounds, sources say.
Instead of saying that the contract had been awarded to the only company that was still standing, government officials made it seem as if the contract had been a two-way race to the end.
The revelation that Team Cormorant was quietly thrown out of the competition earlier this year is the latest twist in the ongoing saga that is now expected to be played out before the courts.
A government official said information about Team Cormorant's disqualification was not made public last week because the government thinks it will be a pivotal point if Team Cormorant decides to launch a lawsuit over the outcome.
Defence Minister Bill Graham, in announcing the decision to buy 28 helicopters from U.S.-based Sikorsky, said on Friday that it "represents the right helicopter for the Canadian Forces at the best price for Canadians."
Even at a thorough technical briefing that day, senior bureaucrats did not tell journalists that the contract was awarded to the only bidder still in the running.
"It gave the impression that there were two companies, and that we went for the cheapest," the government source said yesterday.
There is growing bitterness between Team Cormorant and the government over the process. A senior government official yesterday dismissed a report that there was only a 1-per-cent price difference (about $50-million) between the winning bid of Sikorsky and the disqualified bid of Team Cormorant.
The government is arguing that the difference was more in the range of 15 per cent, meaning that Team Cormorant's bid was about $750-million higher.
The fact that Team Cormorant was disqualified in recent months is surprising because the federal government adopted a complicated process two years ago to prevent such an outcome. In 2002, the government created a "prequalification" phase under which the competing helicopters would have to meet specific technical requirements before entering the final leg of the competition, which would be settled solely on the issue of price.
Team Cormorant and Sikorsky met the requirements of the prequalification process, but Team Cormorant was, nonetheless, disqualified from the competition later. The reason for Team Cormorant's disqualification is unclear, as government and industry officials remain coy about recent events.
It is a stunning twist for a company that won the first competition to replace the Sea Kings in the early 1990s under the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. That contract was cancelled by then-prime-minister Jean Chrétien in 1993, but Team Cormorant later won a smaller competition to produce search-and-rescue helicopters for the Canadian Forces.
"It's an incredible outcome after Cormorant won in 1992, won in 1998, prequalified in 2003, to be told that their bid is not acceptable in 2004," an industry source said.
The government now expects that its decision to exclude Team Cormorant from the competition will be at the centre of a lawsuit from AgustaWestland, the Anglo-Italian consortium that builds the aircraft.
Team Cormorant has long alleged that the process to replace the Sea Kings was rigged in favour of other competitors, and has vowed to take the matter before the courts if it lost the contract.
Team Cormorant has three legal options: the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Federal Court and the Ontario Superior Court.
The CITT, an administrative tribunal, provides the quickest way ahead for Team Cormorant, which could challenge its disqualification as well as Sikorsky's qualification. If Team Cormorant wins its case, the CITT could order the retendering of the contract or call on the government to offer financial compensation to Team Cormorant.
Second, the Federal Court could provide a judicial review of the process, and it could eventually send the contract back to the government for retendering.
Finally, Team Cormorant could argue before the Ontario Superior Court that Sikorsky did not meet the government's requirements and did not deserve the contract. If Team Cormorant was successful, the Ontario Superior Court could order the government to offer financial compensation to Team Cormorant.
In addition, the Auditor-General is expected to review the contract and determine whether the federal government adopted the best strategy to replace the Sea Kings.

With the $480 million cost of the cancelation of the initial contract, plus the compensation it will have to be paid now, even following with government numbers, ($750 M) the S92 will become a lot more expensive then the EH101

Original Globe and Mail text:
Ottawa forced to buy Sikorsky, sources say



UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL

Ottowa braces for AgustaWestland suit


rjsquirrel

Lappos, post me some more funny stories, amuse me with the possibilities. I don't know if the S-92 will hack it, but hasn't Igor built one or two of those things before?

Yeahh tell him to post some more stories about the bid... I would like to see them too.

[[email protected]]

RotorPilot - the EHI - 01 (it became the EH 101 after a typo) was built as a civilian helicopter, a heliliner designed to cruise between North Sea oil rigs - it's in the RAF museum at Henlow. It was resurrected as a platform for ASW when the RN needed to replace its Sea Kings with an autonomous detection and weapons delivery system in the 90s. It never achieved the weapons delivery system because it couldn't hack the payload, despite the third engine but, after much work the detection hardware and software was sorted. Then, when the Canadians first said 'Non' to the 101 and Westlands were looking down the barrel of a big trading defecit, the RAF were forced to 'procure' the SH variant of the Merlin, complete with the comedy rear ramp which is too steep for troops and not big enough for a landrover (unless you remove the windscreen). We actually wanted more Chinooks since they lift more and go faster.

As for the Canadians recent decision - they probably learned their lesson from their aquisition of the Cormorants - cracked windscreens, horrendous downwash and a rapid replacement of the TR hubs that grounded the UK fleet - if it had been a new car you would have sent it back!
The S 92 might not live up to all its hype and press but it can't do much worse than the EH101.

[BanjoPlayer]

Just adding on from what Mr Squirrel asked or should I say commented on with reference to Pre-Production accidents on the EH101. Has the S-92/ H-92 had any accidents etc during pre-production or since?

[Visionary]

Crab,
I have noticed that you dont particularly like the Merlin, but intrigued as to whether you have had a go on it or is it just educated comment?

[Wunper]

EHI-01 / EH101 / MERLIN HM Mk1/MERLIN HC Mk3 /PETREL/CHIMO/ CORMORANT call it what you will plenty of poop here

W



http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/in...H101/EH101.htm

[Ian Corrigible]

Crab,

Reasonable criticism of an aircraft is acceptable, but you're a little off course. The EH101 was not designed as a North Sea heliliner - it stemmed from the MoD's feasibility studies of 1974-77 into a Sea King replacement, with Agusta joining the party in 1980. The aircraft at RAF Hendon (ZJ116 / G-OIOI) was developed by EHI later in game, but was never going to have much success given the small demand for offshore heavylift helos and the dominance (at the time, before Nick chimes in...!) of the Super Puma.

It does seem a little strange that the RAF didn't insist on applying an SH paint job to ZJ116 before parking it in the museum.

I/C

[Lu Zuckerman]

Another point of view.

To: Ian Corrigible

The EH101 was not designed as a North Sea heliliner - it stemmed from the MoD's feasibility studies of 1974-77 into a Sea King replacement, with Agusta joining the party in 1980

I believe the EH-101 was a collaborative effort between Agusta and Westland from the very beginning. Agusta designed the dynamic and flight control systems and they were to build the civil version where Westland would build the naval version. They also had a work sharing agreement where each would build elements that would be used by the other as well as on their own builds.

Agusta who had built an Agusta 101 several years earlier forced the use of the 101 designation on Westland. The Agusta 101 resembled the Super Frelon and I believe the rotorhead was a French design. The Agusta 101 was developed to be a bargaining chip to force Vertol to give Agusta a license to build the CH-47

Check this out http://212.158.133.3/hwa/hpi/0001-0500/0342.jpg

[widgeon]

if i recall correctly it started life as the WG34 ( my memory sometimes fails me ) . I think Westlands had a few years of development before EHI came into the picture. ( wonder what wg 31 , 32 and 33 were ??).

[[email protected]]

Ian Corrigible - I stand corrected on the history of the Merlin, the aeroflight page is very detailed if a little partisan - is he employed by Westlands? Hendon, Henlow... I was only 2 letters out. The one in the RAF museum hasn't got the comedy ramp which is probably why they didn't give it the paint job. Mind you, the 28 Sqn Merlins have been on the ground for so long they might as well have driven one down there to add to the display.

Visionary - I know that most Merlin pilots praise the aircraft for its handling and avionics, apparently it is like a scaled up Lynx and therefore must be good fun to fly. But the avionics fit is available on any modern helicopter and is a quantum leap in capability from the Sea King/Puma from which most of the Military pilots converted; no wonder they are impressed with it.

However good it is in its primary RN role, despite not having a weapons system, it is not a match for the Chinook in SH ops nor is it a good SAR platform apart from extreme range jobs. I would not like to have to rescue climbers/cliff hangers in it nor try to get a winchman onto a small fishing boat or yacht - it is just too big, has too powerful a downwash and sits in an awkward attitude for winch work.

Anyway we will definitely be able to buy it now that GKN are selling out to Augusta - our politicians will say we are supporting our European partners instead of just sending lorryloads of cash to Yeovil.

[NickLappos]

'Nobody believes' chopper deal was fair, DND official laments
Ottawa Citizen
The Defence Department's top procurement official is frustrated and at a loss over how to convince the public that the purchase of a new helicopter for the Canadian military is not only a good deal, but one that involved a fair competition.
The U.S.-based Sikorsky aircraft company was named last week as the winner of the $5-billion competition to provide the Canadian Forces with 28 new maritime helicopters.
But allegations have been flying that the process was rigged against Sikorsky's rival, Team Cormorant, and its chopper, a version of the EH-101, and that Liberal government officials interfered with the competition.
"I'm frustrated because it's really such a great win for us as a military and for the taxpayer," said Alan Williams, assistant deputy minister responsible for materiel. "Nobody seems to want to believe me.
"People, I think, want to believe the worst," he added.
Mr. Williams has acknowledged that there were lengthy delays in getting the government to approve the start of the procurement process.
"The fact is once we got the go ahead, not one peep was heard out of them in terms of interfering with the process," he said. "There wasn't one peep about trying to change the statement of requirements. That's the case. And I don't know how to get that message out even more clearly than I am."
Mr. Williams said he won't comment on suggestions that Team Cormorant's bid was eliminated because the paperwork it submitted was not properly done and that various capabilities of the craft were not documented.
He said such information is proprietary and it is up to the company to release any such information.
His remarks won't likely mollify Team Cormorant, which has said it is reviewing whether to proceed with legal action against the federal government.
In their war chest of potential legal arrows is a 1997 Defence Department report that concludes that several hundred million dollars could have been saved if the government selected the same type of helicopter for both search-and-rescue and naval operations.
The Canadian Forces already operate Cormorant helicopters for search-and-rescue duties, and officials argue it would have made financial sense to pick the same aircraft for the Sea King replacement.

[RotorPilot]

Today's "GLOBE AND MAIL" has another article about this whole affair.
They caught one big shot lying about the process and inplicitly admit that the EH101 might be better.

Unfortunately this almost half page article does not show in their web edition.

Will try to scan the document to post.

Its what the Canadians wanted

[rjsquirrel]

rotorpilot needs to give some answers

RotorPilot,

So why don't you tell us why the EH-101 crashes so often, and has the worst safety record of any heli in service? How about telling us the payload or at least the empty weight? Why don't you tell us how many hours a year it can fly?

Instead of hunting for a scanner for a half page article, how about some answers?

Are you afraid to talk about your pet helicopter with all its warts?

Rocket J. Squirrel

[BanjoPlayer]

Mr Squirrel,

How many crashes / serious incidents has the EH101 had? How many crashes / serious incidents has the S-92 had?

Maybe Nick can answer the last one

[RotorPilot]

TODAY'S PAPER

Auditors deny looking at helicopter bid
Auditor-General's staff favoured process, rookie Public Works Minister Brison said

By GLORIA GALLOWAY
Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - Page A6

OTTAWA -- Officials in the Auditor-General's office have never looked at the contract to buy $5-billion worth of military helicopters despite newly minted Public Works Minister Scott Brison's statement that they spoke favourably about the process.
When Mr. Brison was joined by two of his Liberal cabinet colleagues -- Defence Minister Bill Graham and Fisheries Minister Geoff Regan -- to announce that the government would buy the 28 choppers from Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., he talked positively about the procedure used to procure the aircraft.
"I am pleased to say that officials of the Auditor-General have commented favourably on our use of this approach," he said in a speech approved by senior Public Works staff. Mr. Brison was referring to the "lowest-cost compliant approach," in which the contract is awarded to the bidder who meets all the specifications at the lowest price.
The government has traditionally favoured what it calls the "best-value approach" in which the actual value of what each bidder is offering is divided by the amount on the price tag.
"The approach that they have taken, under certain conditions, could be seen to be fair and lead to best value," said Julie Hebert, a spokeswoman for the Office of the Auditor-General, "but we have not audited this particular purchase, so, further than that, we don't know."
It is impossible to say whether the lowest-cost compliant approach is bad or good, Ms. Hebert said. "Under some conditions, this approach is fair and it's good and it leads to good value. In this case did it? We have not done an audit."
Mr. Brison's comments were based on a letter from Hugh McRoberts, the assistant auditor-general, to Alan Williams, the assistant deputy minister of National Defence, who supervised the purchase process for the helicopters in February, 2003 -- 10 months before the requests for helicopter proposals went out.
In the letter, Mr. McRoberts points out that the department had outlined steps taken to determine what features were not needed in the helicopters, and therefore not considered of value.
"Based on those discussions, we have agreed that, in these circumstances, a lowest-cost-compliant approach to this type of procurement could give rise to best value," he wrote.
However, Mr. McRoberts said at the end of his letter, "I must make it clear that it will only be after the procurement is completed and we have done our audit will we be able to make an assessment as to whether or not best value was actually achieved."
The minister was unavailable for comment yesterday, but his spokesman, Dale Palmateer, disagreed that Mr. McRoberts was speaking neutrally in his letter about the approach.
And Mr. Brison "has stated that they have commented favourably on an approach," Mr. Palmateer said. "He's not suggesting in any manner that they have actually examined [the bid] yet."
The process used to select the winning bid is an issue because AgustaWestland, the Anglo-Italian company that lost out to Sikorsky's H-92s, has alleged that the bidding was rigged in favour of Sikorsky. AgustaWestland's EH-101s, also called Cormorants, are more expensive than the H-92s.
The bid replaces a substantial portion of one that former prime minister Jean Chrétien ripped up after he took office in 1993. That contract, forged by the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, would have bought EH-101s.
Mr. Williams, who noted yesterday that the Sikorsky bid was "hundreds of millions" of dollars less than that received from AgustaWestland, said Mr. McRoberts's letter simply agreed that there are many ways of getting the best value.
"This is perhaps the case that will come closest to providing best value for the taxpayer in the sense that we don't spend a nickel more on anything that we don't have to and we're minimizing the whole life cycle of costs," Mr. Williams said.
"Because someone says this is more capable or this can fly faster or higher . . . if I don't need that, why should I pay taxpayers' money for that?"

My comments will follow ASAP

Original text from
THE GLOBE AND MAIL


Auditors deny looking at helicopter bid

The helicopter procurement process