CH-148 Cyclone Progress

[MarkOttawa]

A post at The Torch:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/12/talk-about-headline-spin-canadian.html

Talk about headline spin: "Canadian Forces To Receive Helicopter Fleet With Leading Edge Technology"

The government has caved in to Sikorsky (the title headline, at the link, is so, er, "Canada's New Government"--hurl). What a balls up...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Yet more, from the Globe and Mail (usual copyright disclaimer)

$117-million later, Ottawa's troubles with Sikorsky aren't over
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090107.wplanes07/BNStory/National/

The helicopter-maker that will replace Canada's aging Sea Kings is embroiled in a secret legal battle with Ottawa that could lead to higher costs for an aircraft that was bought on a fixed-price basis in 2004.

The government quietly announced two weeks ago that it is giving $117-million in extra funding to Sikorsky International Operations Inc. to settle a dispute over the helicopters' design.

In addition, the government acknowledged that it will not impose penalties that could have reached $36-million against the company for a four-year delay in the delivery of the first of 28 fully equipped helicopters to replace the Sea Kings.

The news release announcing the extra funding to Sikorsky came out just before Christmas, which guaranteed it would receive minimal coverage.

However, the release did not include any hint that Sikorsky and Ottawa are set to face off in a new round of legal talks. Industry and government officials said Sikorsky will allege before an arbitrator that Ottawa is seeking further improvements on the helicopters [emphasis added], which the government ordered in a $5-billion contract in 2004.

The government refused to provide details on the fight with Sikorsky, except to acknowledge it involves a different issue than the one that was settled for $117-million on Dec. 23.

"The contractor has proposed to submit the topic of scope creep (or out of scope work) to arbitration. Arbitration is one of the dispute resolution processes included in the contract and is an agreed-upon method for resolving issues," Public Works spokeswoman France Langlois said in an e-mail.

Ms. Langlois said Sikorsky is still working on the helicopters and Ottawa cannot discuss the matter further.

A spokesman for Sikorsky did not respond to requests for further information.

The government is refusing to explain exactly why it is spending an additional $117-million to obtain the helicopters it agreed to buy in 2004. So far, the government has said it wants improvements in the "tactical data exchange" that is part of the aircraft's communications system, and a boost in engine power.

Sources in the defence industry said the government seems to be trying to cover up the fact that it had to climb down from its tough negotiation stand last year.

While he was public works minister last spring, Michael Fortier told The Globe and Mail that the government was refusing Sikorsky's requests for $200-million to $500-million in additional funding for the requested improvements.

"When the government signs a deal with a supplier for a specific good at price x, that's the price the government should pay for that good," said Mr. Fortier, who has since left office.

"In this case, the price was set at contract signing."

A few months later, a senior official told The Globe that new funding could be necessary to obtain the Sikorsky helicopters. However, the official said that the amount would be relatively low and would produce a better-equipped helicopter.

"It's now well under $100-million, and that figure could be as low as $40-million for a better helicopter, essentially. Our holding line throughout these discussions has been: we're not paying a penny more for the helicopters that we ordered. We will pay a little more for a better helicopter," the official said.

The Department of National Defence will start receiving "fully capable helicopters" in 2012. That means that the first helicopters delivered in 2010 will not include all of the equipment that was requested in the contract four years ago.

According to the 2004 contract, DND was supposed to receive the first fully equipped helicopter in 2008 [emphasis added].

Mark
Ottawa

 

[GK .Dundas]

Given that no political party wants to go thru this yet again ! It wont matter if the Cyclone is utterly incapable of even achieving flight much less perform it's assigned tasks . We will buy it and the NDHQ will issue daily press releases extolling it's every virtue even if those virtues don't exist.I suspect that for all intensive purposes Sikorsky has just been given a licence  (if it so chooses) to rape the Canadian taxpayer at will

 

[aesop081]

It wont matter if the Cyclone is utterly incapable of even achieving flight

???

It has flown already

 

[SeaKingTacco]

GK. Dundas-

Do you even have the first clue about which you post?  Cyclone 801 has been flying since the summer.

 

[Occam]

SeaKingTacco and CDN Aviator:  That's not what he said.  Read the entire sentence, not just the phrase that was quoted.  It makes perfect sense.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

SeaKingTacco and CDN Aviator:  That's not what he said.  Read the entire sentence, not just the phrase that was quoted.  It makes perfect sense.

That is exactly what he said.  And no, what he said does not make "perfect sense". But since you seem to know much more about the Maritime Helicopter Program than I do, please, by all means, correct me.

 

[aesop081]

  That's not what he said.

That is indeed what he was usggesting.

Read the entire sentence,

I have.

  It makes perfect sense.

No, it does not. The CH-148 has indeed flown and will be more than able to perform its assigned tasks. Contractual issues and the aicraft's performance are not related. The mission systems are a "known" ( as they are shared with AIMP block 3).

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Contractual issues and the aicraft's performance are not related. The mission systems are a "known" ( as they are shared with AIMP block 3).

Have the mission systems flown in a helicopter before? Especially this model?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

No.  And I am not minimizing the difficulties that lie ahead.

What I took great exception to was the assertion that:

a. the Cyclone has not flown.  It has.

b.  the Government of Canada, through DND, would aid and abet Sikorsky to be contractually non-compliant on a major capital project.

If Occam and GK Dundas have specific evidence of either, they should post it.

 

[Occam]

That is exactly what he said.  And no, what he said does not make "perfect sense". But since you seem to know much more about the Maritime Helicopter Program than I do, please, by all means, correct me.

I didn't claim to know more about the MHP than you do.  What I'm telling you is that you're failing to comprehend the language he used.

I believe it's called "conditional mood" in writing.  He should have used "wouldn't" instead of "won't", but that's not why you're attacking his post.

"It wouldn't matter if Ford was unable to build a road-worthy vehicle, much less produce a fuel-efficient vehicle - the government will bail them out anyways." - Does that make things any clearer?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

"It wouldn't matter if Ford was unable to build a road-worthy vehicle, much less produce a fuel-efficient vehicle - the government will bail them out anyways." - Does that make things any clearer?

In a word- No. (and I don't mean the grammer). And how do you know what GK. Dundas "meant" to write?

Look- specific evidence or not that Sikorsky is actively screwing Canada on a Major Capital Project and that Canada is aiding and abetting.  Put it up and we have something to debate.

 

[Occam]

In a word- No. (and I don't mean the grammer). And how do you know what GK. Dundas "meant" to write?

Perhaps because the language he was using was clear to me?

Look- specific evidence or not that Sikorsky is actively screwing Canada on a Major Capital Project and that Canada is aiding and abetting.  Put it up and we have something to debate.

I have no dog in that race.  All I meant to clear up was that GK.Dundas wasn't trying to suggest that the Cyclone has never flown, or will never fly, or anything along those lines.  Carry on...

 

[Kirkhill]

SKT, I'm afraid that I read GK's post the same way that Occam did.

What I took from the post was the GK "feels" that no matter how the Cyclone eventually performs it will be acquired, strictly on the grounds that "no government will want to go through that (the procurement process presumably) again".

He does seem to be a little less than up to date on the actual capabilities of the machine and its progress.

I don't think there is any active effort to "rape the taxpayer".  I do think that on this project, because of the delays incurred getting this far, that the Government will go a long way to make sure that this particular aircraft gets off the ground......and that may involve opening the wallet a little wider than might otherwise be considered appropriate.

Where I part company with GK is that I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing.

The greater risk is that pressure will result in the aircraft coming into service before that money is spent and all relevant gremlins have been pitched.

 

[observor 69]

Rrrrrrrright  :

 

[KingKikapu]

Well I read it like CDN Aviator and SeakingTacco.  It most certainly wasn't phrased as a conditional sentence, and the fact that Occam had to provide an alternative conjugation to make the sentence work doesn't speak highly to its clarity.

Semantics aside, this contract has taken donkey years to complete.  I have no clue what's been the biggest hold ups, but I highly doubt it's a straight cash grab.

 

[ScottS]

Well I read it like CDN Aviator and SeakingTacco.  It most certainly wasn't phrased as a conditional sentence, and the fact that Occam had to provide an alternative conjugation to make the sentence work doesn't speak highly to its clarity.

I agree.  What he said makes sense, however there is no context for it.  Sure, there have been delays, but almost every major project has delays.  At this point, I don't see any reason to believe that the aircraft will not perform as expected.

 

[observor 69]

Doomed helicopter failed vital safety test, files reveal
Newfoundland crash raises concerns as Ottawa awaits arrival of S-92s

PETER CHENEY
From Monday's Globe and Mail
April 6, 2009 at 1:00 AM EDT

When the Canadian government placed a $5-billion order for 28 Sikorsky S-92s in 2004, the model was touted as “the safest helicopter in the world,” with an advanced design certified to tough safety standards that made it ideal for risky offshore operations. But a crash that killed 17 people off Newfoundland last month is raising questions about the safety of the S-92.

Documents obtained by The Globe and Mail show that the S-92 failed a critical test of whether the aircraft can keep flying if the oil in its main gearbox leaks out, a key safety feature found in other makes of helicopter – including a model that was beaten out by the Sikorsky for the Canadian military contract. The delivery of the helicopters to the Department of National Defence has already been beset by a series of delays.

Certification documents show that the S-92 couldn't meet a specification that calls for the main gearbox to run for half an hour without oil – a requirement known as “run dry.” The specification is designed to give pilots extra time to make a safe landing if the gearbox loses its oil.

That is considered one of the deadliest emergencies a helicopter pilot can face, since it can cause a transmission seizure that stops the rotor blades.
       
                            --------------------------------------------------------------

Although the S-92 flight manual instructs pilots to land immediately if they lose oil pressure in the main gearbox, the actions of the flight crew in the Newfoundland crash on March 12 suggest that they thought they had more time than they did.

After radioing a mayday in which they reported gearbox oil-pressure problems, they spent approximately eight minutes descending from 9,000 feet to about 800, where they apparently levelled off for several more minutes. Although the investigation is ongoing, many pilots and engineers believe the S-92's gearbox seized, dropping the helicopter into the Atlantic when the rotor blades stopped.

Experienced pilots say the crew could have made it from 9,000 feet to the water in less than half the time they took. “To me, the descent rate says they thought they had a longer window,” says a former offshore helicopter pilot.

Complete article at LINK

 

[Zoomie]

FWIW - I read it like Occam has so eloquently posted.

 

[Kirkhill]

IIRC  the Cyclone was always supposed to be a Multi-Purpose Aircraft (for good or ill).

Weren't the TACCO stations supposed to roll out of the back to convert the beasts from ASW to UTT configuration?  All this suggests to me is that the split contract for the ASW portion has been sliding under the radar with the ASW contractor hoping that Sikorski won't get its act together any time soon. 

Apparently Sikorski is ready to start delivering airframes while the ASW guy isn't.

In the meantime, aren't a lot of the Sea Kings being used on Anti-Pirate Patrol with a C6/C9 door gunner instead of all that ASW stuff anyway?

Might as well get some use out of the new kit and reduce the workload on the old stuff.

Hope you don't wear out the new airframes in the sand before you get a chance to onload torpedoes.