|
Canadian Sea King replacement update
|
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 |
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! |
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.
|
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!!!! |
Followup Toronto Star article
Debate swirls around choice of helicopter 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. |
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)? |
Winning helicopters assailed as inferior
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. |
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. |
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 :p |
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!!! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Buzzzzz...... there it is again! Someone swat it, please.
|
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 |
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. |
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 |
Mr. Nick Lappos:
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! 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. |
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 |
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. |
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 |
Mr. Nick Lappos
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. 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?? 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 ? |
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! :ok: |
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.
:E :E |
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 !.
|
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? |
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. |
All very interesting.
Nick, When will the first civilian S-92 be in the air, and what I mean is certified to carry pax. |
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). 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 :confused: ) 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) 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. 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. 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? |
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. |
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?
|
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? |
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 |
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 |
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 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 :E :E |
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 ??).
|
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. |
'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. |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:36. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.