CH-148 Cyclone Progress
- Thread starter Kirkhill
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
There are still a few remaining Mission System integration matters to be resolved, but except for one of them potentially, I believe that none can be classified as show stoppers and so I felt that they were not worth highlighting. They are mainly software-related and those troubles are invariably curable over time.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
I was thinking along this line, and mindful of the words in yellow highlight on the bottom of the 12 Wing MHPMO DIN site.
RCAF to get only five test choppers as manufacturer faces $80 million fine
By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press 01/26/2012
Article Link
OTTAWA - The manufacturer of the air force's new maritime helicopter has told National Defence it will deliver only five test aircraft this year — opening the door to tens of millions of dollars in fines on a project the auditor general has said is late and over budget.
Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. is supposed to deliver a "fully mission capable" version of the CH-148 Cyclone helicopter by June, or face a further $80 million in contract penalties on top of $8 million the federal government has already levied.
Senior defence officials say safety certification of the aircraft is still ongoing and it's highly unlikely the giant U.S. aircraft-maker will meet its target, even though the program is years behind schedule.
"Sikorsky are only committing to deliver five by this year, which will be training aircraft," said a high-level defence source, who spoke to The Canadian Press on the condition of anonymity.
The Cyclones are the highly touted replacement for the CH-124 Sea Kings, which will mark a milestone 50 years in service in 2013.
Originally, the company was supposed to deliver its first chopper in 2008 and have the whole fleet of 28 on the flight line by end of last year. When it became evident a few years ago that schedule wasn't going to be met, the Harper government worked out a deal with the Stratford, Conn.-based corporation to provide a handful of scaled-down aircraft, which would be retrofitted later.
The so-called interim helicopters, which are minus combat systems, were supposed to allow crews to train. But only one helicopter was delivered last year and it arrived late, prompting the government to impose an $8 million fine.
Sikorsky has still not completed full certification of the training aircraft, although it is expected to happen sometime this year. But that's a long way from delivering a "fully capable (maritime helicopter), with all its mission software," which is what the contract stipulates.
When originally proposed 12 years ago, the cost was expected to be $2.8 billion, but that has ballooned to an estimated $5.7 billion, according to a 2010 report by former auditor general Sheila Fraser.
She criticized the Cyclone purchase as well as the plan to buy 15 CH-147-F helicopters, saying Defence turned what was supposed to be off-the-shelf purchases into a customization nightmares.
New Democrats have slammed the Harper government for apparently not collecting the initial $8 million fine.
But senior defence officials said that penalty and the anticipated additional $80 million will be deducted from future payments the federal government will make for maintenance on the helicopter fleet.
"The $8 million comes out of reduced payments and in-service support over time, which is to our advantage," said the senior official.
More on link
By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press 01/26/2012
Article Link
OTTAWA - The manufacturer of the air force's new maritime helicopter has told National Defence it will deliver only five test aircraft this year — opening the door to tens of millions of dollars in fines on a project the auditor general has said is late and over budget.
Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. is supposed to deliver a "fully mission capable" version of the CH-148 Cyclone helicopter by June, or face a further $80 million in contract penalties on top of $8 million the federal government has already levied.
Senior defence officials say safety certification of the aircraft is still ongoing and it's highly unlikely the giant U.S. aircraft-maker will meet its target, even though the program is years behind schedule.
"Sikorsky are only committing to deliver five by this year, which will be training aircraft," said a high-level defence source, who spoke to The Canadian Press on the condition of anonymity.
The Cyclones are the highly touted replacement for the CH-124 Sea Kings, which will mark a milestone 50 years in service in 2013.
Originally, the company was supposed to deliver its first chopper in 2008 and have the whole fleet of 28 on the flight line by end of last year. When it became evident a few years ago that schedule wasn't going to be met, the Harper government worked out a deal with the Stratford, Conn.-based corporation to provide a handful of scaled-down aircraft, which would be retrofitted later.
The so-called interim helicopters, which are minus combat systems, were supposed to allow crews to train. But only one helicopter was delivered last year and it arrived late, prompting the government to impose an $8 million fine.
Sikorsky has still not completed full certification of the training aircraft, although it is expected to happen sometime this year. But that's a long way from delivering a "fully capable (maritime helicopter), with all its mission software," which is what the contract stipulates.
When originally proposed 12 years ago, the cost was expected to be $2.8 billion, but that has ballooned to an estimated $5.7 billion, according to a 2010 report by former auditor general Sheila Fraser.
She criticized the Cyclone purchase as well as the plan to buy 15 CH-147-F helicopters, saying Defence turned what was supposed to be off-the-shelf purchases into a customization nightmares.
New Democrats have slammed the Harper government for apparently not collecting the initial $8 million fine.
But senior defence officials said that penalty and the anticipated additional $80 million will be deducted from future payments the federal government will make for maintenance on the helicopter fleet.
"The $8 million comes out of reduced payments and in-service support over time, which is to our advantage," said the senior official.
More on link
- Reaction score
- 4,402
- Points
- 1,160
This, taken from the Canadian Press story just above, highlights an old and, probably, never to be resolved, dilemma:
1. We want to buy "off the shelf," systems because they are both "proven" and less likely to require expensive "customization;" but
2. "Off the shelf" usually means old ... and we worry about emerging threats, support through our systems' (often very long) service lives and we want to be up-to-date (but see the CH-147); and
3. Canadian companies want to
4. Both NDHQ staff officers and Industry Canada want to "fix" whatever DND buys.
There were/are "proven" maritime helicopters out there - one had a political problem - but we have chosen a "developmental" aircraft with all that entails in terms of risks and costs.
- Reaction score
- 18,826
- Points
- 1,360
Privateer said:
Disclaimer: I'm a "green" helicopter guy, vice a "grey" helicopter guy, but I slept at a HolidayInn Express last week, so I'm probably fairly close to the correct answer.
EH-101, NH-90, and SH-60R.
That said, however, a country would have to specify which on-board systems it wanted from a "menu" of systems already installed for other operators, so technically there is no "100% off-the-shelf" MH, unless you are willing to accept another country's particular configuration.
Regards
G2G
The naval NH-90 (NFH-90) is not in service with any country yet and many countries (ie Germany, Sweden and Australia) are having troubles introducing the simpler TTH-90 (Army Helo) and are expressing dissatisfaction with it. Sweden ended up buying Blackhawks to overcome the delays with their aircraft. Also despite already having purchased the NH-90, the RAN chose the MH-60R over the NFH-90 to replace the their S-70Bs.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20100224/DEFSECT01/2240302/German-Army-Report-Highlights-NH90-Deficiencies
http://www.helihub.com/2011/04/15/sweden-buys-15-black-hawks/
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2012/01/10/02.xml
The NFH-90 has been in the works for about 10 years longer than the CH148 and is probably only a little bit ahead.
IMHO the only aircraft in 2004 to be truly off-self and mostly meet our requirements would have been the RN Navy Merlin HM Mk 1 or the possibly the Italian Navy EH-101. As G2G has pointed out, this would have meant buying them in the exact configurations used by those operators.
The MH-60R would probably meet our needs but would definitely require a change in how we operate our maritime helicopters. It is also pretty much at max growth potential already. Albeit, it has the fairly large advantage of being in service in large numbers with USN. Though in 2004 it was not yet in service. It was only delivered to the USN in Dec '05 and probably was not "operational" till '07.
Some perspective:
NH-90 first flight 1995, entered limited service with the Germans 2006. As of yet no naval version in service anywhere.
EH-101 first flight 1987, entered limited service 1999 with Royal Navy. Full operation service with RN not until 2004.
CH148 first flight 2008, when is it going to fully operational?, not sure but based on similar aircraft 10 years might be a good bet. 2018 anyone?
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20100224/DEFSECT01/2240302/German-Army-Report-Highlights-NH90-Deficiencies
http://www.helihub.com/2011/04/15/sweden-buys-15-black-hawks/
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2012/01/10/02.xml
The NFH-90 has been in the works for about 10 years longer than the CH148 and is probably only a little bit ahead.
IMHO the only aircraft in 2004 to be truly off-self and mostly meet our requirements would have been the RN Navy Merlin HM Mk 1 or the possibly the Italian Navy EH-101. As G2G has pointed out, this would have meant buying them in the exact configurations used by those operators.
The MH-60R would probably meet our needs but would definitely require a change in how we operate our maritime helicopters. It is also pretty much at max growth potential already. Albeit, it has the fairly large advantage of being in service in large numbers with USN. Though in 2004 it was not yet in service. It was only delivered to the USN in Dec '05 and probably was not "operational" till '07.
Some perspective:
NH-90 first flight 1995, entered limited service with the Germans 2006. As of yet no naval version in service anywhere.
EH-101 first flight 1987, entered limited service 1999 with Royal Navy. Full operation service with RN not until 2004.
CH148 first flight 2008, when is it going to fully operational?, not sure but based on similar aircraft 10 years might be a good bet. 2018 anyone?
- Reaction score
- 4,402
- Points
- 1,160
Thanks for that very informative post h3tacco.
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
What is making this a little head spinning for me is the CH-148 is an evolution of the well proven UH-60, and the civil version of the CH 148 is used world wide (including Canada).
Since this is/should be a proven airframe, I could understand issues integrating sensors and weapons, but the idea the aircraft itself is having issues is difficult to understand. (The idea the company is having issues delivering a product which is both an evolution of a long running product line and in service in other markets is simply inexcusable).
Hopefully there will be an acceptable resolution soon.
Since this is/should be a proven airframe, I could understand issues integrating sensors and weapons, but the idea the aircraft itself is having issues is difficult to understand. (The idea the company is having issues delivering a product which is both an evolution of a long running product line and in service in other markets is simply inexcusable).
Hopefully there will be an acceptable resolution soon.
GK .Dundas
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,254
- Points
- 960
This project dates back to 1983 and we have yet to receive one single operational aircraft ! Am I the only one bothered by this? :facepalm:
I have even seen statements that it will be at least ten more years before we see aircraft in fleet use.That's almost 40 years from the start of the first program to replace the Sea King.
Other countries manage to run Defence procurement projects .Some of them actually get them done on time and on budget.
I'm incredibly frustrated right now I can only imagine what the Sea King crews are feeling right now!
I have even seen statements that it will be at least ten more years before we see aircraft in fleet use.That's almost 40 years from the start of the first program to replace the Sea King.
Other countries manage to run Defence procurement projects .Some of them actually get them done on time and on budget.
I'm incredibly frustrated right now I can only imagine what the Sea King crews are feeling right now!
- Reaction score
- 22,779
- Points
- 1,090
GK .Dundas said:
The C17 acquisition was ahead of schedule and under budget. Others have also come in on time and on budget.
No need to badmouth all the folks working in procurement because one inititative with lots of outside DND/CF fingerprints on it isn't making the grade.
The claim that the S-92 or the CH148 are simply evolutions of the UH-60 are mainly for marketing purposes. The only thing the S-92 or CH148 shares with the UH-60 are the same engines. The S-92 and CH148 are significantly different enough that they have separate production lines. Sikorsky does not take a S-92 and turn it into a CH148. They are for all sakes and purposes two different but related aircraft.
A
aesop081
Guest
h3tacco said:
"Based on, but not a conversion of"
Similar threads
