CH-148 Cyclone Progress

[MarkOttawa]

Conservative defence vote buying policy at work:

Standards for navy choppers dropped in exchange for $80 million in local contracts
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/840311--ottawa-drops-standards-for-navy-choppers-in-exchange-for-80-million-in-benefits

Ottawa is dropping key performance standards for navy helicopters due this fall in return for the manufacturer’s promise to guarantee another $80 million in work for Canadian aerospace companies over the next two decades.

The revised deal with U.S.-based Sikorsky, signed June 30, means the first six Cyclone choppers that fly from frigates in November won’t be required to have a system allowing some encrypted tactical information to be exchanged between ships and helicopters.

This message-exchange system was one of the original requirements in the $5.1 billion contract for the 28 helicopters, which are already more than three years behind schedule.

The helicopters will also no longer have to pass an endurance test for flying in warmer temperatures nor a test that requires one engine to keep going if a second engine fails in higher temperatures [well, we won't need them in Afstan after all ].

Also, the software needed for some military sensors and weapons systems won’t be complete by the fall.

A spokeswoman for the federal Department of Public Works says Sikorsky will have to provide additional contracts to Canadian firms in exchange for more time to work on the helicopters.

“It’s not a penalty. It’s more business for Canadian industry. It’s value added for Canada,” said Johanne Provencher, director of defence and major projects at the department...

Provencher said the deal is acceptable to the federal government because the helicopters can still be used for military evaluation and training...

Provencher said Sikorsky has also dropped a claim for $100 million against Ottawa in a legal dispute over what the terms of the original contract required...

Provencher said Sikorsky has also agreed to provide Ottawa with up to $30 million from sales income if the manufacturer sells the Cyclones to other countries. Sikorsky is currently bidding on a contract to supply the helicopter to Germany.

The revision is the second contract amendment since Sikorsky originally won a hotly contested bidding war in 2004 to replace the aging fleet of Sea King navy helicopters.

On Dec. 23, 2008, the government allowed Sikorsky to extend the original deadline almost two years, until this fall, and gave the company an additional $117 million to pay for engine design changes and other features...

One wonders what GK .Dundas thinks.  Gov't news release:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=00&id=3486

Mark
Ottawa

 

[karl28]

In my opinion the cyclones are going to be a worse disaster than the comerants where . We should of just bough something like the Blawkhawk would of been better in the long run .

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

Each A/C is approximately 40 % of a frigate capabilities

???

 

[niceasdrhuxtable]

In my opinion the cyclones are going to be a worse disaster than the comerants where . We should of just bough something like the Blawkhawk would of been better in the long run .

You mean a Sea Hawk? From a crew stand-point I'm glad we didn't. Those things are tiny in the back.

 

[George Wallace]

Was the SeaHawk not just as big a disaster?

 

[aesop081]

Was the SeaHawk not just as big a disaster?

Far from it. So succesfull that the USN is consolidating its H-60 operations on the R and S models at this time.

 

[GK .Dundas]

As I recall wasn't  there some issue about ditching the bird? That caused someone during the initial bid process waaaayyyy back when, (the late 80's ?) heartburn?

 

[pete.coach]

In my opinion the cyclones are going to be a worse disaster than the comerants where . We should of just bough something like the Blawkhawk would of been better in the long run .

Funny that the disaster that the Cormorant would allow it to win all these awards for rescues?  Many of which the old Labrador could not even attempt,
http://www.gapan.org/canada-region/news-brief/.
(http://www.agustawestland.com/news/agustawestland-congratulates-2009-cormorant-trophy-winners).
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/19w-19e/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?cat=79&id=4966.
just to mention a few. I wish folks would stop perpetuating hearsay and dig up the facts. SAR people are very happy with the aircraft.
The real issue it the AirForce and their misguided desire to farm out the maintenance and logistics with the unproven and unsubstantiated claims of saving money, particularly on a fleet that they have no history with. They (whomever "they" may be) can make all sorts of claims but have nothing to back it up.
The Cyclone will eventually be a great weapon system, (despite AirForce managements desire to play politics), on the backs of the hard working air and ground crews......as always.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

As I recall wasn't  there some issue about ditching the bird? That caused someone during the initial bid process waaaayyyy back when, (the late 80's ?) heartburn?

Why in gods name would be get rid of our main platform for ASW?? I think you may have misread something, because even naval and air force commanders aren't that clueless.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Why in gods name would be get rid of our main platform for ASW?? I think you may have misread something, because even naval and air force commanders aren't that clueless.

I was trying to remember the reasoning  fro deselecting the SH 60 / S70 back in the day and I seem to recall that that was one of reasons given.the SH 60 had no chance of winning because of this and other factors in particular range The reality was the CPFs were basically designed around a notational helicopter that ended up looking suspiciously like an EH 101.
BTW pal who pissed in your oatmeal ? I don't think I deserved that attitude adjustment.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ex-D

I think what GK is getting at, is that, as I remember, the Sea Hawk had less autonomy than the Sea King.  It was, IIRC, essentially designed as a weapons carrying system with the parent ship doing the targeting and directing.

Perhaps you or SKT can fill in the blanks but, as I understand it, RCN practice, and subsequently Maritime Command practice was to load up the helo with more sensors and allow them more free range - hence the bigger bird. 

The Seahawk was designed to be close held by the parent frigate,....... if I remember what I read on these boards many moons ago.

 

[Baz]

As I recall wasn't  there some issue about ditching the bird? That caused someone during the initial bid process waaaayyyy back when, (the late 80's ?) heartburn?

Why in gods name would be get rid of our main platform for ASW?? I think you may have misread something, because even naval and air force commanders aren't that clueless.

I think what GK.Dundas was getting at is there was a problem with actaully ditching the aircraft in an emergency, ie landing on the water.  If so, he is correct.  Going from my memory the auxilliary flotation bags would block the Pilot and Co-Pilot (ATO) doors when inflated, making egress difficult when on the water.  I think it may have been solved by adding a popup window to the door so that it could be used for egress above the bag if required, instead of opening the door.

Ex-D

I think what GK is getting at, is that, as I remember, the Sea Hawk had less autonomy than the Sea King.  It was, IIRC, essentially designed as a weapons carrying system with the parent ship doing the targeting and directing.

Perhaps you or SKT can fill in the blanks but, as I understand it, RCN practice, and subsequently Maritime Command practice was to load up the helo with more sensors and allow them more free range - hence the bigger bird. 

The Seahawk was designed to be close held by the parent frigate,....... if I remember what I read on these boards many moons ago.

It depends on whether you are talking about the 60B or the 60F.  If in fact your talking about the 60B then you are correct.  It was heavily dependant on the Hawk Link, which was a high bandwidth link back to the ship.  In fact, in effect part of the crew was actually in the ops room, and there were only 3 crew on board the aircraft.  Advanced radar and acoustic processing was done in the ship.  Video could also be moved down the Hawk Link when the turret was added.  However, this is not in keeping with the way Canada (or the UK or Aus either) do MH ops, who use a crew of 4 to be more autonomous.

The 60F used a much simpler link to talk to the carrier for inner screen dipping defense, which was in fact pretty much the same as what the H-3 Sea Kings had used before.  The current Sea King tactical computer (ASN-123), which was acquired surplus from the US's H-3s, still has the software to use that link but the hardware (which is on the aircraft) is not connected.

The 60B and 60DF are both being replaced by the 60R (the 60S is for missile shooting, minehunting and utility).  It carries both Link-16 (as does the 60S) and TCDL to replace the Hawk Link.  However, the US is currently moving away from tehered ops as they realize the potential the 60R has.

As an aside, there was also concern about the low (and small) cabin in the 60, as it made utility and SAR more difficult.

 

[GK .Dundas]

I think what GK.Dundas was getting at is there was a problem with actaully ditching the aircraft in an emergency, ie landing on the water.  If so, he is correct.  Going from my memory the auxilliary flotation bags would block the Pilot and Co-Pilot (ATO) doors when inflated, making egress difficult when on the water.  I think it may have been solved by adding a popup window to the door so that it could be used for egress above the bag if required, instead of opening the door.

It depends on whether you are talking about the 60B or the 60F.  If in fact your talking about the 60B then you are correct.  It was heavily dependant on the Hawk Link, which was a high bandwidth link back to the ship.  In fact, in effect part of the crew was actually in the ops room, and there were only 3 crew on board the aircraft.  Advanced radar and acoustic processing was done in the ship.  Video could also be moved down the Hawk Link when the turret was added.  However, this is not in keeping with the way Canada (or the UK or Aus either) do MH ops, who use a crew of 4 to be more autonomous.

The 60F used a much simpler link to talk to the carrier for inner screen dipping defense, which was in fact pretty much the same as what the H-3 Sea Kings had used before.  The current Sea King tactical computer (ASN-123), which was acquired surplus from the US's H-3s, still has the software to use that link but the hardware (which is on the aircraft) is not connected.

The 60B and 60DF are both being replaced by the 60R (the 60S is for missile shooting, minehunting and utility).  It carries both Link-16 (as does the 60S) and TCDL to replace the Hawk Link.  However, the US is currently moving away from tehered ops as they realize the potential the 60R has.

As an aside, there was also concern about the low (and small) cabin in the 60, as it made utility and SAR more difficult.

That's it! there were concerns about the flotation bags....You know they say the memory's the 2nd thing to go .....I forget what's first.!
The incredible thing about the CPF  programme was that the designers had taken the incredibly bold step of designing them around a helicopter that  only existed in their minds.which begs the question if a design that exists on paper, it is called vaporware  but what do you call it when it hasn't got that far?
It's a pity that the Force's political masters have  tended to be far more timid in their imaginations and this has always seemed the trend.
BTW I also recognize the apparent  irony of  my position . I'm opposed to  the Cyclone which is at least has been built but in favor of the  unbuilt EH101 Canadian variant  but there are in my opinion any way , more then few differences.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks for the clarification Baz:

To be fair I wasn't and still am not that clued in on the variants of the Seahawk but given the vintage of my recollections I am pretty sure it was the -B model that I was thinking of.

Cheers.

 

[midget-boyd91]

I have a bit of a civvie question here but;
  When an aircraft such as the Seaking has proven it's abilities through many ranges of operations in many nations i.e Falklands in the RN to humanitarian missions, and proven it's long life as a Navy/Airforce hybrid in our own forces...... Why don't manufacturers just continue making the same aircraft (although upgrading through the years)? 
Sikorsky had an incredible helicopter with the SeaKing and it was used by umpteen nations in umpteen different roles, so why wouldn't they try something similar to the C-130 being "re-released" as the C-130J?

 

[Haletown]

In related Cyclone news . . .

"Canadian Sea King pilots have rewritten Seasons in the Sun to include the following lyrics:

Goodbye papa, please pray for me
My helicopter’s crashing in the sea
We had joy, we had fun, we had Sea Kings in the sun
But the engines are on fire and the Sea Kings must retire"


RtR @          http://tinyurl.com/2ev4qlb

 

[Occam]

In related Cyclone news . . .

"Canadian Sea King pilots have rewritten Seasons in the Sun to include the following lyrics:

Goodbye papa, please pray for me
My helicopter’s crashing in the sea
We had joy, we had fun, we had Sea Kings in the sun
But the engines are on fire and the Sea Kings must retire"

Welcome to 2002.  ;D



Sea Kings in the Sun(Sung to the tune of Seasons in the Sun)

Goodbye papa please pray for me
My helicopter's crashing in the sea
I honestly don't mean to pout,
but my future is in doubt,
My co-pilot just fell out.

Goodbye papa it's hard to fly,
When my airframe’s cracking in the sky,
For every hour in the air,
it takes them 30 to repair,
We fly these things on a dare.

We've had joy, we've had fun,
We've had Sea Kings in the sun,
But the engines are on fire,
and the Sea Kings must retire,

Goodbye Chrétien my stingy one,
You could have bought the EH-101,
Instead you blew 500 mil,
Just to cancel out the bill,
Now I need an airsick pill.

We've had joy, we've had fun,
We've had Sea Kings in the sun
We'll be lucky if we reach,
a crash landing on the beach.

 

[newfin]

Aren't we supposed to be taking delivery of some of these this month?  Can't recall the exact figure but a dozen rings a bell.  Does anyone know if we are close to seeing the first of these?

 

[CEEBEE501]

I found this on Defense industry daily, hope it helps you:

Initial CH-148 delivery was originally scheduled for November 2008, but that was moved to January 2009, then pushed back again to December 2010. In the wake of a very vague announcement about contract renegotiation and further program delays, observers began questioning whether the program’s initial dates were ever realistic, and whether even the revised dates can be depended upon. Their suspicions were justified when it was revealed that fully operational CH-148s with upgraded engines wouldn’t begin delivery until June 2012, and the full fleet of 28 won’t be delivered until the end of 2013.

And this excerpt from the Auditors Generals report from October

In 2000, total indicative costs of the 28 maritime helicopters were estimated at $2.8 billion and revised to $3.1 billion in 2003, exclusive of the cost of providing in-service support. The cost of purchasing and providing in-service support for the helicopters, and of training personnel, is currently estimated to be $5.7 billion over 20 years. This estimate does not include costs related to contracted Sea King support, new infrastructure, Canadian Forces personnel, and ongoing operating costs [which raise the program to C$ 6.2 billion for 28 helicopters]. In addition, the project has experienced delays. Delivery of the first fully capable Cyclone, initially expected in 2005, was delayed to 2008 and is now expected to occur in 2012.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canadas-CH-148-Cyclones-Better-Late-Than-Never-05223/

 

[Occam]

Neither of those articles mention it, but several sources state that there will be six (6) aircraft delivered this month to allow training to be carried out.  Those aircraft will be interim standard, to be retrofitted at a later date to meet the original contract requirements.

I haven't heard if that timeline is still in effect.