CH-148 Cyclone Progress

[Ex-Dragoon]

Could someone go over the differences between the interim model and the actual variant we  want please.

 

[R933ex]

Just noticing the picture on the CBC and I noticed the number on the aircraft, 806, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/05/26/ns-mackay-defence-jobs.html. I guess the question is this, is it normal to have the same number or 2 different AC?  I'm thinking 806 is also the tail number on a 440 twin.

 

[aesop081]

. I guess the question is this, is it normal to have the same number or 2 different AC?  I'm thinking 806 is also the tail number on a 440 twin.

I dont know if it is normal but it certain is not a problem since "806" is only an abreviation of the full aircraft tail number.

 

[h3tacco]

Just noticing the picture on the CBC and I noticed the number on the aircraft, 806, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/05/26/ns-mackay-defence-jobs.html. I guess the question is this, is it normal to have the same number or 2 different AC?  I'm thinking 806 is also the tail number on a 440 twin.

The full registration is CH148806 on the the Cyclone.

The Twin Otter is CC138806 so their is no duplication.

CF aircraft paint schemes only have the last three digits of registration on the aircraft in large lettering, which can lead to "duplication". 

This link does a pretty good job chronicling CF registration over the years.

http://www.ody.ca/~bwalker/

 

[Loachman]

MacKay announced Thursday the Canadian military is expected to formally receive its first Cyclone maritime helicopter later this summer after years of delays.

So Reply 425 above ("'weeks rather than months' away") is just as valid now as it was on 8 March.

 

[R933ex]

Thanks guys

 

[The Bread Guy]

From Question Period in the House of Commons 20 Jun 11:

Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, Canada has been waiting for 28 CH-148 Cyclone helicopters since 2004. These delays have cost Canada $6.2 billion. The Minister of National Defence described the agreement for the Sikorsky helicopters as one of the worst examples of military procurement, but he did not say that Sikorsky still owes penalties for the delays.  While Canadian families are tightening their belts, how can the government allow large military companies to take advantage of us by failing to collect the money we are owed?

Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, when we sign a contract with a military supplier, we expect its obligations under the contract to be met. The first interim maritime helicopter has arrived at 12 Wing Shearwater to support training of Canadian Forces air crew and technicians for the maritime helicopter project. It is important to know that Sikorsky has confirmed that it will deliver the 28 fully compliant maritime helicopters on schedule starting in June of this year.

 

[Radar114]

Wow.  June of this year, I wonder if anyone told Shearwater that cause the ramp will get some congested. 

 

[Haletown]

Good to see the NDP Research Room is up to snuff on the issue and writing pointed, poignant  and of course historically accurate questions for HM Loyal Opposition members to use in Question Period.

 

[FoverF]

10 days is a pretty ambitious timeline, especially considering the most recent announcements suggested at least a 2 year wait. Perhaps this member has understandably confused the similar-sounding 'fully compliant' aircraft with the 'interim and not fully compliant' aircraft.

I'm also curious how the delays have cost $6.2 billion? Is this the NDP's professional estimate of the incremental difference in operational costs between the Sea King and the Cyclone since the original contracted delivery date? Or is the member implying that the total acquisition and in-service support costs of the program (approx $6.2 billion) would have been waived had the aircraft been delivered on time?

Good thing we have such bright bulbs as this running the show.

But really, this is just a textbook example of a political exchange. One person asks a question based on a premise which they know full well is completely false. The person being asked then chooses not to answer the question, instead delivering a pre-determined political message, which is also false.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'm also curious how the delays have cost $6.2 billion? Is this the NDP's professional estimate of the incremental difference in operational costs between the Sea King and the Cyclone since the original contracted delivery date? Or is the member implying that the total acquisition and in-service support costs of the program (approx $6.2 billion) would have been waived had the aircraft been delivered on time?

This figure seems to have come from the Auditor General's report of October 2010:

.... Taking into account all direct and related costs associated with the Cyclone capability, we estimate the total costs to be in the order of $6.2 billion exclusive of National Defence personnel and operating costs ....

Methinks at least some of those costs would have been incurred even if the Cyclone wasn't delayed, so to say it's ALL delay cost may be stretching.

But really, this is just a textbook example of a political exchange. One person asks a question based on a premise which they know full well is completely false. The person being asked then chooses not to answer the question, instead delivering a pre-determined political message, which is also false. 

Harsh, but touché.

 

[Haletown]

But really, this is just a textbook example of a political exchange. One person asks a question based on a premise which they know full well is completely false. The person being asked then chooses not to answer the question, instead delivering a pre-determined political message, which is also false.

Perfect description.

Which is why it is called Question Period, not Answer Period.

 

[jacob_ns]

I've heard today that CH148806 has been put into short term storage here in Shearwater. Things are looking mighty grim for the Cyclone at the moment.

 

[rathawk]

I've followed this forum as a guest for several years and I decided at long last today to throw my oar in.  I've had and continue to have considerable first hand knowledge of the MH (Cyclone) Project (for quite a few tears now) and have always followed posts to sites like this one on the subject with great interest.  Most of what appears often seems to me to be uninformed or, at least, ill-informed opinion.

Your recent post about the aircraft being in storage and your opinion of unfolding troubles are, however, accurate.

The helicopter that Sikorsky "delivered" to Shearwater last year has not been accepted by Canada for a multitude of very serious reasons.  It is indeed in storage at Shearwater, remains unflyable, and also remains under Sikorsky title unusable to Canada for any purpose other than as a static display aircraft.     

The MH procurement is indeed currently in serious trouble.  The Cyclone does not/cannot meet many of the key minimum performance requirements of the original contract and. for these and other reasons, cannot be certified as being airworthy for anything more than daytime, fair weather, over land operations at best.... in other words, unsuitable both for flight training and the operational roles for which it was acquired. 

 

[Occam]

I've had and continue to have considerable first hand knowledge of the MH (Cyclone) Project (for quite a few tears now) and have always followed posts to sites like this one on the subject with great interest. 

Freudian slip?  ;D

 

[Old Sweat]

Freudian slip?  ;D

I opine it is both deliberate and tragically brilliant.

 

[Good2Golf]

...Most of what appears often seems to me to be uninformed or, at least, ill-informed opinion...

This...on the INTERNET?  Say it isn't so! 

The MH procurement is indeed currently in serious trouble.  The Cyclone does not/cannot meet many of the key minimum performance requirements of the original contract and. for these and other reasons, cannot be certified as being airworthy for anything more than daytime, fair weather, over land operations at best.... in other words, unsuitable both for flight training and the operational roles for which it was acquired.

Is this part you stating an as yet unreleased official assessment without formally identifying yourself and your precise involvement with the project?  Many might call that yet again more of "the internet"...you know, someone spouting out potentially "uninformed or, at least, ill-informed opinion."

Just remember...Vivamus gladio, morientur gladio.


Regards
G2G

 

[Haletown]

how about providing a list of that multitude of serious problems?

One person's serious can sometimes be a nitpicking pissing match initiated by contracts officers to drag out negotiations . . . 

So if you do know what is happening, that  list would be appreciated.

 

[Kirkhill]

op: Oooooooo

 

[rathawk]

[how about providing a list of that multitude of serious problems?

One person's serious can sometimes be a nitpicking pissing match initiated by contracts officers to drag out negotiations . . . 

So if you do know what is happening, that  list would be appreciated.]

Without getting too technical:

The "drivetrain" (engines and main gear box) are inadequate.  New engines and a new MGB are currently in development but will not be ready in time for the amended late delivery date of June 2012.  There is no guarantee that the engines and MGB under development will meet the original requirement.

Airframe vibration and flutter grossly exceed the contract standard... there is no easy fix for this.

There are a number of outstanding issues related to the airworthiness of the Fly-by-Wire flight control system.  Procedural "work-arounds" may end up being the only way to deal with some but there are still matters of robustness and lack of maturity that remain basic safety concerns. 

There remain unresolved landing gear and blade fold concerns that impact ship compatibility.

There are more "issues" but those are some of the big ones (and, they are certainly not nits) that need to be overcome on an aircraft that was supposed to have been delivered ready for duty 3.3 years ago.