Canadian Sea King replacement update
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Donut- 92's
Well it's about time!
My government has actually made a wise choice, with the selection of Nick's S- 92.
Hope you can survive on our Tim Horton's coffee and DONUTS, Nick! It's part of the contract you know!!!!!
Congrats!
D.K
My government has actually made a wise choice, with the selection of Nick's S- 92.
Hope you can survive on our Tim Horton's coffee and DONUTS, Nick! It's part of the contract you know!!!!!
Congrats!
D.K
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, Donut King! Tim Horton's is great coffee, and the donuts are might fine, too.
I have lots of friends flying lots of good, tough missions in Canada. We are really proud to be the provider for the MHP, and we are committed to fast delivery of a very fine machine!
I have lots of friends flying lots of good, tough missions in Canada. We are really proud to be the provider for the MHP, and we are committed to fast delivery of a very fine machine!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Untested in military use, no one else has bought it, costs $5 billion. 170 Canadian manufacturers are to be contracted to make parts. A wise choice........I think not.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kenny R
I fully respect your right to that opinion KennyR.
Yet, may I contradict your points:
Untested( military op's)..........no kidding, it"s a brand new a/c!
no other buyer.... wrong, ask others here who has bought them.
$5 billion...........money well spent on our military...remember our government has blown millions/billions on an idiotic gun registry!
Canadian contractors......hello......equals CANADIAN jobs!
D.K
p.s. apologies for the sarcasm!!!!
Yet, may I contradict your points:
Untested( military op's)..........no kidding, it"s a brand new a/c!
no other buyer.... wrong, ask others here who has bought them.
$5 billion...........money well spent on our military...remember our government has blown millions/billions on an idiotic gun registry!
Canadian contractors......hello......equals CANADIAN jobs!
D.K
p.s. apologies for the sarcasm!!!!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Followup Toronto Star article
Debate swirls around choice of helicopter
Canada called `guinea pig' for new model
Decision ends years of political bickering
OTTAWA
Canada called `guinea pig' for new model
Decision ends years of political bickering
OTTAWA
—The federal government has flown into a whirlwind of debate with its choice of the Sikorsky H-92 helicopter to replace the obsolete fleet of Sea Kings.
The government rejected the only other competitor, the three-engine Cormorant, a British-Italian design similar to Cormorants already flying rescue missions for the Canadian military.
Canada is the first country to buy the Sikorsky design, which critics charge is a less capable, cheaper helicopter, the choice of which flies in the face of Prime Minister Paul Martin's promise to deliver quality equipment for Canada's armed forces.
While civilian versions of the helicopter are flying, the military model, the H-92, is still on the drawing board and is unproven in military service.
"It's a paper aircraft," said one long-time observer of the process. "Canada is going to be the guinea pig to see if this bird will fly."
The cost of the deal is estimated at $5 billion, including a 20-year support contract with Sikorsky to help maintain the choppers, meant for anti-submarine patrols, surveillance and ship-borne duties.
Defence Minister Bill Graham, announcing the decision to buy 28 of the U.S.-built choppers, said yesterday "(the Sikorsky) represents the right helicopter for the Canadian Forces at the best price for Canadians.
"The country will be getting a robust maritime helicopter that will meet our military needs for many years to come," Graham said at CFB Shearwater, near Halifax. He called it a "world-class helicopter that is at the forefront of modern technology" and called the selection process "fair, open and very rigorous."
There are concerns that the task of customizing the Sikorsky chopper for military use and the complex electronic hardware to go with it will delay deliveries and force Canada to keep its 40-year-old Sea Kings in the air for years.
Federal officials said there's little chance the helicopter maker will renege on the delivery deadlines.
"They've got a history of competence and capability and delivery that ranks with anybody," said Alan Williams, an assistant deputy minister in the defence department.
The company will build them in the United States while General Dynamics Canada will design the electronic hardware. The deal will mean $4.5 billion in investment and benefits to Canadian firms, government officials said.
The decision ends years of political bickering that dates back to the 1980s when defence officials embarked on a process to replace the 1960s-era Sea Kings.
Brian Mulroney's Conservative government ordered 50 EH-101 helicopters, a version of the Cormorant, as a replacement. But former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien denounced the pick as unaffordable and cancelled the contract in 1993, paying out close to $500 million in penalties.
Yesterday, military experts were at least cheering the fact that Ottawa had finally made a choice. "For the armed forces, it's good news," said Alain Pellerin, of the Conference of Defence Associations.
"(But) the fact it's been so poorly handled over the last 10 years makes you wonder whether the Sikorsky won because it's the best candidate or because they didn't want to pick the one they had cancelled before," he said.
Conservative MP and defence critic Gordon O'Connor, a former high-ranking officer, said Ottawa's foot-dragging has put the crews who fly the obsolete and unreliable Sea Kings at risk.
"We're not going to congratulate the government because they've delayed this project for 10 years," said O'Connor, questioning whether Chrétien's decision to cancel the original deal has saved taxpayers any money in the end.
Even if the choppers begin arriving on schedule starting in late 2008, the aging Sea Kings — infamous for their breakdowns and harrowing close calls — will be flying for at least four more years.
Cormorant officials weren't commenting yesterday. But behind the scenes, they were fuming at being shut out of what they've long considered an unfair selection process and weren't ruling out legal action against the federal government. The company has accused Ottawa of deliberately rewriting and "watering down" the specifications to favour of the Sikorsky design.
Williams denied the standards were changed to swing the competition. "We didn't in fact dumb things down or raise the bar, or lower the bar. We remained true to our principles," he said.
Cormorant's claims that the Sikorsky helicopter was inferior are "hogwash," said Lloyd Noseworthy, general manager of Sikorsky Canada, calling the H-92 the "best performer in its class."
And he dismissed concerns modification work will delay the project. "The chopper will be ready," he said.
The government rejected the only other competitor, the three-engine Cormorant, a British-Italian design similar to Cormorants already flying rescue missions for the Canadian military.
Canada is the first country to buy the Sikorsky design, which critics charge is a less capable, cheaper helicopter, the choice of which flies in the face of Prime Minister Paul Martin's promise to deliver quality equipment for Canada's armed forces.
While civilian versions of the helicopter are flying, the military model, the H-92, is still on the drawing board and is unproven in military service.
"It's a paper aircraft," said one long-time observer of the process. "Canada is going to be the guinea pig to see if this bird will fly."
The cost of the deal is estimated at $5 billion, including a 20-year support contract with Sikorsky to help maintain the choppers, meant for anti-submarine patrols, surveillance and ship-borne duties.
Defence Minister Bill Graham, announcing the decision to buy 28 of the U.S.-built choppers, said yesterday "(the Sikorsky) represents the right helicopter for the Canadian Forces at the best price for Canadians.
"The country will be getting a robust maritime helicopter that will meet our military needs for many years to come," Graham said at CFB Shearwater, near Halifax. He called it a "world-class helicopter that is at the forefront of modern technology" and called the selection process "fair, open and very rigorous."
There are concerns that the task of customizing the Sikorsky chopper for military use and the complex electronic hardware to go with it will delay deliveries and force Canada to keep its 40-year-old Sea Kings in the air for years.
Federal officials said there's little chance the helicopter maker will renege on the delivery deadlines.
"They've got a history of competence and capability and delivery that ranks with anybody," said Alan Williams, an assistant deputy minister in the defence department.
The company will build them in the United States while General Dynamics Canada will design the electronic hardware. The deal will mean $4.5 billion in investment and benefits to Canadian firms, government officials said.
The decision ends years of political bickering that dates back to the 1980s when defence officials embarked on a process to replace the 1960s-era Sea Kings.
Brian Mulroney's Conservative government ordered 50 EH-101 helicopters, a version of the Cormorant, as a replacement. But former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien denounced the pick as unaffordable and cancelled the contract in 1993, paying out close to $500 million in penalties.
Yesterday, military experts were at least cheering the fact that Ottawa had finally made a choice. "For the armed forces, it's good news," said Alain Pellerin, of the Conference of Defence Associations.
"(But) the fact it's been so poorly handled over the last 10 years makes you wonder whether the Sikorsky won because it's the best candidate or because they didn't want to pick the one they had cancelled before," he said.
Conservative MP and defence critic Gordon O'Connor, a former high-ranking officer, said Ottawa's foot-dragging has put the crews who fly the obsolete and unreliable Sea Kings at risk.
"We're not going to congratulate the government because they've delayed this project for 10 years," said O'Connor, questioning whether Chrétien's decision to cancel the original deal has saved taxpayers any money in the end.
Even if the choppers begin arriving on schedule starting in late 2008, the aging Sea Kings — infamous for their breakdowns and harrowing close calls — will be flying for at least four more years.
Cormorant officials weren't commenting yesterday. But behind the scenes, they were fuming at being shut out of what they've long considered an unfair selection process and weren't ruling out legal action against the federal government. The company has accused Ottawa of deliberately rewriting and "watering down" the specifications to favour of the Sikorsky design.
Williams denied the standards were changed to swing the competition. "We didn't in fact dumb things down or raise the bar, or lower the bar. We remained true to our principles," he said.
Cormorant's claims that the Sikorsky helicopter was inferior are "hogwash," said Lloyd Noseworthy, general manager of Sikorsky Canada, calling the H-92 the "best performer in its class."
And he dismissed concerns modification work will delay the project. "The chopper will be ready," he said.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some points:
1) The tender required custom designed gear, to be designed and qualified by Canadian companies to Canadian military standards. This was for both companies, and establishes the schedule, as the design development and qualification of this gear is the longest lead time, by far, but that way the Canadian user gets exactly what they want.
2) The airframe is virtually identical in the S-92 and H-92, and the production line is humming, as we have sold out the first 2 1/2 years of the line already!
3) Tail and main rotor fold are easy modifications, when you make helicopters for a living. We have designed and produced about 4,000 helicopters with folding tails. Now it will be 4,028. The design was started over a year ago, BTW.
4) Do the math! The original tender was for $4.8 Billion Canadian for about 50 helicopters, with no guaranteed support. The new tender (after 11 years of inflation) for 3.2 Billion for 28 helicopters, and includes 20 years of full maintenance cost. Even with the $0.5 Billion in contract cancellation cost, the new deal proves the old deal was a poor bargain, and properly cancelled.
Regarding capability, I will shortly post the relative peformance of the two aircraft. I could use some help from any EH-101/Cormorant drivers out there, as the brochures are unclear on a few points:
What is the empty weight of your aircraft, not including the mission equipment and supplies stored in the cabin? What is the flight manual HOGE weight for 1000 ft standard temp (OAT = +13 degrees C)?
1) The tender required custom designed gear, to be designed and qualified by Canadian companies to Canadian military standards. This was for both companies, and establishes the schedule, as the design development and qualification of this gear is the longest lead time, by far, but that way the Canadian user gets exactly what they want.
2) The airframe is virtually identical in the S-92 and H-92, and the production line is humming, as we have sold out the first 2 1/2 years of the line already!
3) Tail and main rotor fold are easy modifications, when you make helicopters for a living. We have designed and produced about 4,000 helicopters with folding tails. Now it will be 4,028. The design was started over a year ago, BTW.
4) Do the math! The original tender was for $4.8 Billion Canadian for about 50 helicopters, with no guaranteed support. The new tender (after 11 years of inflation) for 3.2 Billion for 28 helicopters, and includes 20 years of full maintenance cost. Even with the $0.5 Billion in contract cancellation cost, the new deal proves the old deal was a poor bargain, and properly cancelled.
Regarding capability, I will shortly post the relative peformance of the two aircraft. I could use some help from any EH-101/Cormorant drivers out there, as the brochures are unclear on a few points:
What is the empty weight of your aircraft, not including the mission equipment and supplies stored in the cabin? What is the flight manual HOGE weight for 1000 ft standard temp (OAT = +13 degrees C)?
Last edited by NickLappos; 24th Jul 2004 at 14:55.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winning helicopters assailed as inferior
By GLORIA GALLOWAY AND KEVIN COX
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
2004 July 24
By GLORIA GALLOWAY AND KEVIN COX
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
2004 July 24
Ottawa and Halifax — The 28 American-made military helicopters the federal government intends to purchase for $5-billion are smaller and weaker than the machines made by the losing bidder, and the price difference between the two is minute, sources said yesterday.
A series of Liberal defence ministers had promised that the controversial helicopter contract would go to the lowest bidder, a stipulation that critics said skewed the process in favour of Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.'s H-92.
It was expected to be much cheaper than its competitor, AgustaWestland Inc.'s EH-101, also known as the Cormorant, which has three engines rather than two and can accommodate more passengers and equipment.
But the Sikorsky bid reportedly came in just about 1 per cent under that submitted for the EH-101.
"The difference in price was razor thin but the Cormorant bid was found unacceptable," a source said, refusing to divulge the bottom line on the proposed EH-101 contract.
No officials from Team Cormorant were willing to speak to the media yesterday, and defence officials also refused to put a price tag on its bid.
Even when talking about the winning Sikorsky contract, the government would not give details of the costs, saying only that it would be paying in the neighbourhood of $5-billion — $1.8-billion for the acquisition of the helicopters and another $3.2-billion for a 20-year service contract to keep the aircraft flying.
The deal calls for delivery of the first helicopter within 48 months of the deal's signing this fall, then one machine a month after that.
Defence Minister Bill Graham and Public Works Minister Scott Brison told air force personnel at 12 Wing Shearwater — the Nova Scotia base where pilots and maintenance crews have struggled to keep ancient Sea King helicopters flying — that the Sikorsky bid represented the lowest cost for the aircraft and the service contract.
And Fisheries and Oceans Minister Geoff Regan said Sikorsky promised that the contract will bring $1-billion of work to aerospace companies in Atlantic Canada, with Ontario gaining $2-billion worth of industrial activity, Quebec $955-million and Western Canada $390-million.
The purchase comes 11 years after former prime minister Jean Chrétien ripped up a $5.6-billion contract signed by the previous Progressive Conservative government to replace both the military helicopters and those used in search-and-rescue missions with the EH-101. That decision cost the government $500-million in penalties.
Industry insiders have long complained that the Liberal government was desperate to avoid purchasing Cormorants to dodge the embarrassment of buying the same helicopters that Mr. Chrétien had rejected.
"That had absolutely nothing to do with our decision," Alan Williams, the assistant deputy minister of defence and the man who steered the bidding process, told a technical briefing yesterday.
He suggested that argument made no sense given the government had bought Cormorants in 1998 for $790-million when the military needed 15 helicopters to replace its search-and-rescue fleet.
But Mr. Chrétien was widely known to have been infuriated by that decision and the Liberals have seemed determined to prevent it from happening again — so much so that Team Cormorant has repeatedly complained about discrimination.
Sikorsky's H-92 is a military version of its S-92, which was built for commercial use.
Critics have suggested it would be all but impossible for Sikorsky to roll out the first helicopter in just four years. But Lloyd Noseworthy, the company's regional director for international business, said revamping the aircraft would be a relatively easy job and he had no concerns about delivering it on time.
"We have built probably more aircraft than all the other helicopter manufacturers put together, so this is business as usual for us," he said.
Public Works officials said yesterday there will be a penalty of $100,000 a day for tardiness. That penalty, however, is capped at a year — so the company will not have to pay more than $36.5-million in late fees, regardless of how long the helicopters are delayed.
The new aircraft will replace the Sea King fleet. The 40-year-old helicopters have been the workhorses of the Canadian military, flying hundreds of hours recently on surveillance missions from ships as part of the U.S.-led war on terrorism. But they require as much as 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the air, and some pilots have expressed frustration at being forced to cancel missions because of malfunctions and having to fly without modern instrumentation.
A dozen of Canada's 41 Sea Kings were destroyed in crashes, killing 10 crew members and injuring about 111 people since the first chopper was purchased in 1963.
The crews who will fly the new machines were delighted that the long debate over the helicopters has ended and they will soon be training on modern aircraft.
"It's kind of like a kid at Christmas — we've got something to look forward to," said Corporal Kyle Roman, a member of the maintenance team at 12 Wing Shearwater.
The advent of the new equipment could also help recruit pilots who want to fly state-of-the-art aircraft, Lieutenant-Colonel Wayne Krause said.
A series of Liberal defence ministers had promised that the controversial helicopter contract would go to the lowest bidder, a stipulation that critics said skewed the process in favour of Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.'s H-92.
It was expected to be much cheaper than its competitor, AgustaWestland Inc.'s EH-101, also known as the Cormorant, which has three engines rather than two and can accommodate more passengers and equipment.
But the Sikorsky bid reportedly came in just about 1 per cent under that submitted for the EH-101.
"The difference in price was razor thin but the Cormorant bid was found unacceptable," a source said, refusing to divulge the bottom line on the proposed EH-101 contract.
No officials from Team Cormorant were willing to speak to the media yesterday, and defence officials also refused to put a price tag on its bid.
Even when talking about the winning Sikorsky contract, the government would not give details of the costs, saying only that it would be paying in the neighbourhood of $5-billion — $1.8-billion for the acquisition of the helicopters and another $3.2-billion for a 20-year service contract to keep the aircraft flying.
The deal calls for delivery of the first helicopter within 48 months of the deal's signing this fall, then one machine a month after that.
Defence Minister Bill Graham and Public Works Minister Scott Brison told air force personnel at 12 Wing Shearwater — the Nova Scotia base where pilots and maintenance crews have struggled to keep ancient Sea King helicopters flying — that the Sikorsky bid represented the lowest cost for the aircraft and the service contract.
And Fisheries and Oceans Minister Geoff Regan said Sikorsky promised that the contract will bring $1-billion of work to aerospace companies in Atlantic Canada, with Ontario gaining $2-billion worth of industrial activity, Quebec $955-million and Western Canada $390-million.
The purchase comes 11 years after former prime minister Jean Chrétien ripped up a $5.6-billion contract signed by the previous Progressive Conservative government to replace both the military helicopters and those used in search-and-rescue missions with the EH-101. That decision cost the government $500-million in penalties.
Industry insiders have long complained that the Liberal government was desperate to avoid purchasing Cormorants to dodge the embarrassment of buying the same helicopters that Mr. Chrétien had rejected.
"That had absolutely nothing to do with our decision," Alan Williams, the assistant deputy minister of defence and the man who steered the bidding process, told a technical briefing yesterday.
He suggested that argument made no sense given the government had bought Cormorants in 1998 for $790-million when the military needed 15 helicopters to replace its search-and-rescue fleet.
But Mr. Chrétien was widely known to have been infuriated by that decision and the Liberals have seemed determined to prevent it from happening again — so much so that Team Cormorant has repeatedly complained about discrimination.
Sikorsky's H-92 is a military version of its S-92, which was built for commercial use.
Critics have suggested it would be all but impossible for Sikorsky to roll out the first helicopter in just four years. But Lloyd Noseworthy, the company's regional director for international business, said revamping the aircraft would be a relatively easy job and he had no concerns about delivering it on time.
"We have built probably more aircraft than all the other helicopter manufacturers put together, so this is business as usual for us," he said.
Public Works officials said yesterday there will be a penalty of $100,000 a day for tardiness. That penalty, however, is capped at a year — so the company will not have to pay more than $36.5-million in late fees, regardless of how long the helicopters are delayed.
The new aircraft will replace the Sea King fleet. The 40-year-old helicopters have been the workhorses of the Canadian military, flying hundreds of hours recently on surveillance missions from ships as part of the U.S.-led war on terrorism. But they require as much as 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the air, and some pilots have expressed frustration at being forced to cancel missions because of malfunctions and having to fly without modern instrumentation.
A dozen of Canada's 41 Sea Kings were destroyed in crashes, killing 10 crew members and injuring about 111 people since the first chopper was purchased in 1963.
The crews who will fly the new machines were delighted that the long debate over the helicopters has ended and they will soon be training on modern aircraft.
"It's kind of like a kid at Christmas — we've got something to look forward to," said Corporal Kyle Roman, a member of the maintenance team at 12 Wing Shearwater.
The advent of the new equipment could also help recruit pilots who want to fly state-of-the-art aircraft, Lieutenant-Colonel Wayne Krause said.
Last edited by RotorPilot; 24th Jul 2004 at 15:00.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: AB, Canada
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
I'm on your side. Just one point with the numbers, the original contract of 50 included 15 SAR birds. Those were already bought on another contract...can't remember the cost for certain, but $1.2 billion springs to mind.
In any case, the global helicopter community is competitive. No matter what we buy or when we buy it, the companies know that they won't get a contract unless the price is reasonable. Bugs me when media focuses on dollars but never puts into perspective what the dollars get you.
As far as the new head & tail, looking forward to seeing it. I might be working with you on that one.
Matthew.
I'm on your side. Just one point with the numbers, the original contract of 50 included 15 SAR birds. Those were already bought on another contract...can't remember the cost for certain, but $1.2 billion springs to mind.
In any case, the global helicopter community is competitive. No matter what we buy or when we buy it, the companies know that they won't get a contract unless the price is reasonable. Bugs me when media focuses on dollars but never puts into perspective what the dollars get you.
As far as the new head & tail, looking forward to seeing it. I might be working with you on that one.
Matthew.
Donut King:
Who is flying them? I know that one was "delivered" with great fan fair at HAI to PHI, but I was shocked to find out that it had to be trucked to and from Las Vegas. Now that is one way to pump up the fuel efficiency numbers. Nick, When does it really deliver?
One last thought (yes Nick my puny little unworthy mind does have them), this should put an end to Sikorsky's drivel that the V-22 is too expensive. All Bell-Boeing has to do is point to the $100M+ FatHawk and all arguements will cease.
The Sultan
Who is flying them? I know that one was "delivered" with great fan fair at HAI to PHI, but I was shocked to find out that it had to be trucked to and from Las Vegas. Now that is one way to pump up the fuel efficiency numbers. Nick, When does it really deliver?
One last thought (yes Nick my puny little unworthy mind does have them), this should put an end to Sikorsky's drivel that the V-22 is too expensive. All Bell-Boeing has to do is point to the $100M+ FatHawk and all arguements will cease.
The Sultan
Nick,
Thanks for confirming the S-92 delivered to PHI had to be trucked to and from Stratford. Did PHI's management get to ride in the back of the semi or were they in the cab.
The Sultan
For the Uniformed:
Sikorsky S-92 Completes First Production Flight
STRATFORD, Conn., June 15, 2004 – Sikorsky Aircraft’s first production S-92 helicopter took to the Connecticut skies on June 14, accomplishing a successful first flight and ushering in a new era in civil rotorcraft.
And I saw it delivered in March!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for confirming the S-92 delivered to PHI had to be trucked to and from Stratford. Did PHI's management get to ride in the back of the semi or were they in the cab.
The Sultan
For the Uniformed:
Sikorsky S-92 Completes First Production Flight
STRATFORD, Conn., June 15, 2004 – Sikorsky Aircraft’s first production S-92 helicopter took to the Connecticut skies on June 14, accomplishing a successful first flight and ushering in a new era in civil rotorcraft.
And I saw it delivered in March!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The 1998 order for 15 CH-149 SAR birds was valued at C$790-million ($605-million in real money). Presumably the maritime helo's price tag reflects considerably higher costs vis-à-vis mission equipment.
Given that the difference between the two bids was reportedly so small (1%), I'd be interested to hear whether the losing EH101 team was allowed to claim commonality savings as part of their 20 year costs (estimated at 15% by the DND) - Nick: any insider info ?
At least AgustaWestland can take some consolation (well, 32 percent's worth) from Oman's order for 20 NH90s.
I/C
Given that the difference between the two bids was reportedly so small (1%), I'd be interested to hear whether the losing EH101 team was allowed to claim commonality savings as part of their 20 year costs (estimated at 15% by the DND) - Nick: any insider info ?
At least AgustaWestland can take some consolation (well, 32 percent's worth) from Oman's order for 20 NH90s.
I/C
Last edited by Ian Corrigible; 25th Jul 2004 at 21:00.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ian,
If the two prices were within 1%, two things are obvious:
1) The EH really, really lost on the merits, not just price!
2) If it were priced that low, I'd pass the hat to buy 1000 EH-101's just to cost Agusta-Westland $10 million for each I bought, and buy their factory machinery at the bankrupcy sale right afterward. It would be an interesting business tactic, wouldn't it!
Regarding commonality of savings, you can't save enough on commonality to make up for the 50% greater operating cost of an EH-101 vs. an S-92.
Regarding the cost of the equipment, the ASW gear they need is always very expensive, that is the nature of its technology. I read somewhere that the RN paid upwards of 60 million pounds each for their Merlins.
If the two prices were within 1%, two things are obvious:
1) The EH really, really lost on the merits, not just price!
2) If it were priced that low, I'd pass the hat to buy 1000 EH-101's just to cost Agusta-Westland $10 million for each I bought, and buy their factory machinery at the bankrupcy sale right afterward. It would be an interesting business tactic, wouldn't it!
Regarding commonality of savings, you can't save enough on commonality to make up for the 50% greater operating cost of an EH-101 vs. an S-92.
Regarding the cost of the equipment, the ASW gear they need is always very expensive, that is the nature of its technology. I read somewhere that the RN paid upwards of 60 million pounds each for their Merlins.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thanks, Nick. There was clearly no way the initial acquisition costs could have been the same, so I was trying to understand how the 20 year package could be within 1%, and whether Team Cormorant were given the benefit of the commonality savings by the DND's evaluation team.
(It would be nice to think you could cause 'the competition' pain by buying product at their sub-cost price tag, but the last decade has repeatedly shown that there are players in our industry (primes and subs) who are both willing and - through government support - able to buy market share this way.)
Good luck with the Cyclone (and congratulations on having the foresight to design the S-92's rotor to spin counter-clockwise...!).
I/C
(It would be nice to think you could cause 'the competition' pain by buying product at their sub-cost price tag, but the last decade has repeatedly shown that there are players in our industry (primes and subs) who are both willing and - through government support - able to buy market share this way.)
Good luck with the Cyclone (and congratulations on having the foresight to design the S-92's rotor to spin counter-clockwise...!).
I/C
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Nick Lappos:
You are trying to compare the operating cost of a 20 passengers twin-engine helicopter that exist only on paper with a 35 passengers tri-engined one that is on service now.
From an ignorant it would be acceptable such claim, from you it is not.
The S92 come second in Portugal and Danmark because in Europe the almost decisive weight of the opinion of those that actually have to use the helicopters is far bigger then here.
No the EH101 lost to politics and a situation created by someone that dubbed the EH101 as "unaffordable Cadillacs" while in the opposition, something that also delayed the decision of the new helicopters for more then a decade. (Portugal and Danmark can afford the Cadillacs can you imagine that 
) It was too much for "them" to loose TWICE the reason to scrap the initial contract at a cost of $480 million.
And you know dam well that the requirements of the new helicopter were intentionally lowered to accommodate the S92 and the NH90 because none of these helicopters could ever met the initial specs. That’s when the EH101 lost its bid, not now.
Regarding commonality of savings, you can't save enough on commonality to make up for the 50% greater operating cost of an EH-101 vs. an S-92.
From an ignorant it would be acceptable such claim, from you it is not.
The S92 come second in Portugal and Danmark because in Europe the almost decisive weight of the opinion of those that actually have to use the helicopters is far bigger then here.
1) The EH really, really lost on the merits, not just price!
) It was too much for "them" to loose TWICE the reason to scrap the initial contract at a cost of $480 million.And you know dam well that the requirements of the new helicopter were intentionally lowered to accommodate the S92 and the NH90 because none of these helicopters could ever met the initial specs. That’s when the EH101 lost its bid, not now.
Last edited by RotorPilot; 25th Jul 2004 at 19:21.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SUNDAY 2004 July 25
TONIGHT ON GLOBAL NATIONAL:
The future of Canada's troubled Sea King helicopters is no longer up in the air. You'll see why tonight.
GLOBAL NATIONAL
Bottom of page
TONIGHT ON GLOBAL NATIONAL:
The future of Canada's troubled Sea King helicopters is no longer up in the air. You'll see why tonight.
GLOBAL NATIONAL
Bottom of page
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RotorPilot,
The ignorance is yours. The contract that is awarded includes a 20 year guaranteed maintenance cost. I really don't know what drives you, but its clear this is not a discussion, it is your forum for your polemics.
The requirements were tough enough that we had to push to make them, and we have better performance than the EH-101. Better, as in we carry more payload, go farther and go faster.
The myth that the competition has created is a way to save face, as they cost more and carry less, and are more expensive to operate. That myth was created to the embarassment of the good people who were trying to make a rational choice. 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.
The ignorance is yours. The contract that is awarded includes a 20 year guaranteed maintenance cost. I really don't know what drives you, but its clear this is not a discussion, it is your forum for your polemics.
The requirements were tough enough that we had to push to make them, and we have better performance than the EH-101. Better, as in we carry more payload, go farther and go faster.
The myth that the competition has created is a way to save face, as they cost more and carry less, and are more expensive to operate. That myth was created to the embarassment of the good people who were trying to make a rational choice. 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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no politics
Re; maintenance cost/ support.
Anyone here operating, say, Eurocopter products??
How easy is it to procure an engine......length of shipment, number of engines available in the system....etc...?
I've heard it was difficult to get support with certain bigger ticket items.
Now how would that relate to an Italian production plant supplying support products to North American customers? I am NOT trashing overseas products, but would suggest their support is delayed at times.
Now if Sikorsky can GURANTEE support, down the street in Connecticut, would that not be a big positive factor in a contract??
D.K
Anyone here operating, say, Eurocopter products??
How easy is it to procure an engine......length of shipment, number of engines available in the system....etc...?
I've heard it was difficult to get support with certain bigger ticket items.
Now how would that relate to an Italian production plant supplying support products to North American customers? I am NOT trashing overseas products, but would suggest their support is delayed at times.
Now if Sikorsky can GURANTEE support, down the street in Connecticut, would that not be a big positive factor in a contract??
D.K
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Nick Lappos
English is not my mother tongue but I think you didn't get it right or I didn't make myself understood.
Lets see again, with the phrase broken in two parts:
From an ignorant it would be acceptable such claim,/
From you it is not.
Can you grasp now that I didn't call ignorant to anyone ?
In the other thread (very difficult when one has two threads with the same subject) you said
Again you forget that in other bids in other countries, many very experienced people with engineering degrees, long time experienced pilots included, made a completely different decision.
I am a former European Air Force Pilot and in my former country the S92 came second as in other countries. In fact, in my former country, the Air Force wanted to consider the S92 but for the TACTICAL missions as a substitute to the PUMAS that are being phased out, not the MARITIME. But things did turn that way and the NH90 was selected.
With the same type of reasoning, to pretend that the Canadian choice is the best one, is to ignore all the other choices that have been made so far by Air Forces more likely to see "combat action" then the Canadian Forces and where the S92 come second or third...
The requirements were changed and I know where they were changed because I saw both documents. Sometimes a single line can make huge differences.
As always Mr. Donut King is very unfortunate with his comments
What in hell has Eurocopter to do with the Agusta/Westland EH101 ?
The version for the Canadian Forces would be built in the BELL Maribel plant, with engines built in Quebec and so on up to 75% I believe.
Nobody is complaining about customer support from Agusta/Westland. On top of that, Mr. Donut King for security reasons, defence hardware require huge amounts of spare parts stocked in the premises of the operating party. My personal experience in countries that follow adequate security procedures, three full years of "normal operation" spares were stocked at any given time with quite a few more in case of conflict, specially the most vulnerable ones. In times of "conflict" the amount of spares can easily grow to the equivalent of 5 years of "normal" operation.
Military operations don't follow the commercial logic or type of management where the customer wants the factory to store the spare parts for them. In my former country (which at the time had one of the largest European helicopter fleets) I saw piles of boxes with brand new engines, main rotors, tail rotors, fuel tanks and everything else. When an engine had a problem it was replaced with a new one and the old sent for overall in the maintenance headquarters. Nobody was EVER in a rush to get any kind of spares... and at the time it was AEROSPATIALE that now is part of EUROCOPTER.
Of course if there are no spare parts stored anywhere, because the operating party decided to take unacceptable risks, then cannibalizing ones to put the others flying is the rule. (remember the PC3's a few years back?)
So, even if Eurocopter had anything to do with Agusta/Westland which it hasn't, the situation wouldn't apply in this case. If any military force wants to rely on the stocks of the manufacturer for its own maintenance, then it DESERVES to have a few helicopters grounded for lack of spares because those are unacceptable risks and having a few grounded might well be an incentive to correct the situation by storing the correct and due amount of spares.
Today there are no distances in the world. We can get anything put anywhere in 24/48 hours.
That "down the road" can be anywhere in the planet.
Your lack of real arguments is pushing you to try to mix things up eh?
I didn't see the GLOBAL TV program about this. Did anyone see it and post a few details ?
The ignorance is yours. The contract that is awarded includes a 20 year guaranteed maintenance cost. I really don't know what drives you, but its clear this is not a discussion, it is your forum for your polemics.
Lets see again, with the phrase broken in two parts:
From an ignorant it would be acceptable such claim,/
From you it is not.
Can you grasp now that I didn't call ignorant to anyone ?
In the other thread (very difficult when one has two threads with the same subject) you said
Many on the selection board are long time experienced pilots, several with engineering degrees, and in my opinion, all of them working to buy the best helicopter available.
It's your choice who you believe, but Sgt. Phil Moffitt seems to have cornered the naysayers market.
It's your choice who you believe, but Sgt. Phil Moffitt seems to have cornered the naysayers market.
I am a former European Air Force Pilot and in my former country the S92 came second as in other countries. In fact, in my former country, the Air Force wanted to consider the S92 but for the TACTICAL missions as a substitute to the PUMAS that are being phased out, not the MARITIME. But things did turn that way and the NH90 was selected.
With the same type of reasoning, to pretend that the Canadian choice is the best one, is to ignore all the other choices that have been made so far by Air Forces more likely to see "combat action" then the Canadian Forces and where the S92 come second or third...
That myth was created to the embarassment of the good people who were trying to make a rational choice. 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.
As always Mr. Donut King is very unfortunate with his comments
Re; maintenance cost/ support.
Anyone here operating, say, Eurocopter products??
Anyone here operating, say, Eurocopter products??
The version for the Canadian Forces would be built in the BELL Maribel plant, with engines built in Quebec and so on up to 75% I believe.
Nobody is complaining about customer support from Agusta/Westland. On top of that, Mr. Donut King for security reasons, defence hardware require huge amounts of spare parts stocked in the premises of the operating party. My personal experience in countries that follow adequate security procedures, three full years of "normal operation" spares were stocked at any given time with quite a few more in case of conflict, specially the most vulnerable ones. In times of "conflict" the amount of spares can easily grow to the equivalent of 5 years of "normal" operation.
Military operations don't follow the commercial logic or type of management where the customer wants the factory to store the spare parts for them. In my former country (which at the time had one of the largest European helicopter fleets) I saw piles of boxes with brand new engines, main rotors, tail rotors, fuel tanks and everything else. When an engine had a problem it was replaced with a new one and the old sent for overall in the maintenance headquarters. Nobody was EVER in a rush to get any kind of spares... and at the time it was AEROSPATIALE that now is part of EUROCOPTER.
Of course if there are no spare parts stored anywhere, because the operating party decided to take unacceptable risks, then cannibalizing ones to put the others flying is the rule. (remember the PC3's a few years back?)
So, even if Eurocopter had anything to do with Agusta/Westland which it hasn't, the situation wouldn't apply in this case. If any military force wants to rely on the stocks of the manufacturer for its own maintenance, then it DESERVES to have a few helicopters grounded for lack of spares because those are unacceptable risks and having a few grounded might well be an incentive to correct the situation by storing the correct and due amount of spares.
Today there are no distances in the world. We can get anything put anywhere in 24/48 hours.
That "down the road" can be anywhere in the planet.
Your lack of real arguments is pushing you to try to mix things up eh?
I didn't see the GLOBAL TV program about this. Did anyone see it and post a few details ?
Last edited by RotorPilot; 26th Jul 2004 at 20:48.
