• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CH-148 Cyclone Progress

E.R. Campbell said:
Thanks, Baz; so am I correct in reading "could be achieived which would be relevant to the RCAF and which may not fundamentally violate the SOI" as meaning that an acceptable aircraft is possible, and that "acceptable" ≈ compliant?

(I suppose I'm asking if it is close enough for government work.  :camo: )

I read it to mean that an acceptable aircraft is possible, in that it will meet the RCAF's/RCN's mission needs as stated in the Statement of Operational Intent (SOI); but it may not be completely compliant, in that it may not meet all the detail specs in the Maritime Helicopter Requirements Specification (MHRS, which should have been derived from the SOR/SOI).
 
Interesting tidbit from someone on high, speaking on the record, about what could happen, via The Canadian Press (highlights mine) ....
The head of the Defence Department’s procurement section said he doesn’t know when the military could have a new maritime helicopter in place if Ottawa abandons the CH-148 Cyclones as it seeks alternatives in the long-delayed program.

Rear Admiral Pat Finn said at a security meeting in Halifax on Friday that the timeline is unclear now that the federal government is looking at other options to replace the air force’s aging fleet of Sea Kings.

He described the latest development as part of a multi-track process with the government assessing other assets that might better suit the military’s maritime needs while remaining in talks with the Cyclone’s manufacturer, Sikorsky.

“If there is to be a change of direction … we would have to work at what’s the other solution, what’s the different approach and I wouldn’t be able to give you any kind of schedule at this point,” Finn said following a speech updating the military’s procurement programs. “But we want to make sure that we get the capability that the navy needs and the air force operates on their behalf.”

Sources revealed September 5 that a military team visited a southern base in the United Kingdom recently to look at Royal Navy HM-1 Merlin helicopters.


A spokeswoman for Public Works Minister Diane Finley says the government is looking at options “other” than the troubled Cyclones, which are years behind schedule and billions of dollars over-budget ....
 
In the morning mail. . . . 


"1. Mission system software which controls all weapons and sensors won’t be ready.

2. Messaging functionality/ tactical data exchange capability (automated data-link exchanges of tactical data between designated units, including the ships and aircraft) won’t be fully installed.

3. Mission flight endurance will be 21 minutes less than the contracted requirements.

4. The ability to operate on a single engine, even at high temperatures that cost helicopters their lift.

The first 2 issues will be solved with software and electronics upgrades. The latter 2 issues are expected to be solved by uprated turboshaft engines. All of these upgrades will, of course, require extensive testing of their own."



http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canadas-ch-148-cyclones-better-late-than-never-05223/


 
Haletown said:
In the morning mail. . . . 


"1. Mission system software which controls all weapons and sensors won’t be ready.

2. Messaging functionality/ tactical data exchange capability (automated data-link exchanges of tactical data between designated units, including the ships and aircraft) won’t be fully installed.

3. Mission flight endurance will be 21 minutes less than the contracted requirements.

4. The ability to operate on a single engine, even at high temperatures that cost helicopters their lift.

The first 2 issues will be solved with software and electronics upgrades. The latter 2 issues are expected to be solved by uprated turboshaft engines. All of these upgrades will, of course, require extensive testing of their own."



http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canadas-ch-148-cyclones-better-late-than-never-05223/

Broadly speaking this list is incomplete.
 
I just received the attached release from a colleague.  It was in pdf format with an AgustaWestland Press Release Header on it.  I don't know how to copy a pdf copy here.  What follows is the text content of the pdf that has apparently been distributed to all Canadian News Media today:


10 September 2013
AgustaWestland understands the Government of Canada is considering an alternate solution to the CH-148 Cyclone for the Royal Canadian Air Force Maritime Helicopter replacement programme.
AgustaWestland confirms it is ready to respond, by offering a fleet of the latest generation of AW101 maritime helicopters which meet or even exceed all elements of the original Statement of Operational Requirements (SOR). It is worth of noting that the AW101 had already been deemed fully compliant through the original arduous competition held by the Canadian Government.
Events in Canada in the recent years have clearly demonstrated the AW101 is still the only helicopter which remains compliant and true to all the requirements of the original SOR. The AW101 maritime helicopter is a modern, proven rotorcraft system in service with the British Royal Navy, the Italian Navy and the Japan Maritime Self Defence Force performing the widest scope of naval missions and with an outstanding track record of operational success.
The AW101 would provide the Royal Canadian Air Force with the best aircraft in the world to meet the mission today and for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the AW101 maritime helicopter would have considerable commonality with the proven AW101 “Cormorant” search and rescue fleet which has provided outstanding service to the Royal Canadian Air Force through over 58,000 hours and countless missions in the most extreme conditions possible. The added NATO commonality with other nations would make the selection of the AW101 a viable international force extender.
Furthermore, AgustaWestland has a proven track record of meeting Canada’s offset obligations to Canadian Industry during the previous Cormorant programme. Thus the Company is capable of generating jobs and skills with Canadian Industry to take them into the future.
 
rathawk said:
I just received the attached release from a colleague.  It was in pdf format with an AgustaWestland Press Release Header on it ....
Attached is a copy of the statement from the company.
 
I have to admit that if AW can deliver and the Government cancels the Cyclones, it may be the best thing that ever happens to the Western defense industry. I have no doubt that Sikorsky will attempt to sue and block the new deal. The government will need big balls and tell Sikorsky and any court to go piss up a rope about stopping the new contract. The fallout of this would be a very strong focus on new contract language by both governments and industries. No longer being able to sweep the capacity gaps under the the rug for later or fix them with contract changes.
 
Colin P said:
I have to admit that if AW can deliver and the Government cancels the Cyclones, it may be the best thing that ever happens to the Western defense industry. I have no doubt that Sikorsky will attempt to sue and block the new deal. The government will need big balls and tell Sikorsky and any court to go piss up a rope about stopping the new contract. The fallout of this would be a very strong focus on new contract language by both governments and industries. No longer being able to sweep the capacity gaps under the the rug for later or fix them with contract changes.

From an election standpoint, I think the government would be much better off either cancelling it and moving on with a sole-sourced AW solution (preferably at lower cost than current Sikorsky contract), or committing to a new & improved Sikorsky solution as soon as possible.  They are definitely in no man's land in terms of oversight of this file and their opponents will definitely use against them.


M.
 
milnews.ca said:
Attached is a copy of the statement from the company.

Well this genie can't be put back in the bottle. 

Be fun to be a fly on the wall at Sikorsky HQ as they discuss how to respond.  You can bet this is a topic in the C Suite offices. 

 
Colin P said:
.... The government will need big balls and tell Sikorsky and any court to go piss up a rope about stopping the new contract ....
Also, Canada's case would be stronger if it shows it's been consistent in its approach/needs and following all the steps reasonably - I have no inside knowledge at all, but just based on what I read here, one wonders how easy that might be to prove in a court.

As a taxpayer, all I ask is that a reasonably-priced replacement to the Sea King (too late to inlcude "in a timely fashion") that'll get the the job done.
IsItTooMuchToAskFor2.jpg
 
As much as going all the way back to the original AW solution is really attractive, if I were a senior official I think I would advise my minister to try to make the existing contract work if, and it is a HUGE IF, the price comes down and delivery to the fleet, with at least some useful operational capability, is within the same window as might apply to the Merlin.

On the other hand, if I am a minister - someone who is not seen as papabile, a likely leadership contender - but who is, also, known as a good manager and a stickler for good business practice, and if I have deep, deep roots in the Party, especially based upon my late husband's major role in winning elections for Prime Minister Harper, and if I really want to make the government work better, then I might just be inclined to upset the apple cart. I (that minister) know that the PM wants this thing solved. My officials tell me that the Merlin will work. I may use it as a lever to pry defence procurement out of DND ~ I wil tell my friend the MND that my department will buy him what he needs, efficiently and effectively and expeditiously if, another big, Big IF he can impose a little discipline on his admirals, generals and officials and make them give me sensible, operational, performance requirements, not their own solutions. His job is to get the money and tell me what he needs and then get out of the way; my job is to deliver. No other government departments get a "say."

 
E.R. Campbell said:
As much as going all the way back to the original AW solution is really attractive, if I were a senior official I think I would advise my minister to try to make the existing contract work if, and it is a HUGE IF, the price comes down and delivery to the fleet, with at least some useful operational capability, is within the same window as might apply to the Merlin.

On the other hand, if I am a minister - someone who is not seen as papabile, a likely leadership contender - but who is, also, known as a good manager and a stickler for good business practice, and if I have deep, deep roots in the Party, especially based upon my late husband's major role in winning elections for Prime Minister Harper, and if I really want to make the government work better, then I might just be inclined to upset the apple cart. I (that minister) know that the PM wants this thing solved. My officials tell me that the Merlin will work. I may use it as a lever to pry defence procurement out of DND ~ I wil tell my friend the MND that my department will buy him what he needs, efficiently and effectively and expeditiously if, another big, Big IF he can impose a little discipline on his admirals, generals and officials and make them give me sensible, operational, performance requirements, not their own solutions. His job is to get the money and tell me what he needs and then get out of the way; my job is to deliver. No other government departments get a "say."
Fascinating scenario, indeed - albeit one requiring a lot of Swiss cheese slice holes to line up.
 
The kicker here I think; can AW deliver and how strong is Canada's case against Sikorsky. the risk is (Metaphor starts) jumping ship, only to find out the lifeboat is sinking at the same rate as the ship and the ship is rolling over on the lifeboat. The lifeboat needs to float and motor away on it's own.  (metaphor ends)
 
The Globe and Mail reports that the "Troubled helicopter deal has already cost Ottawa more than $1-billion." The report goes on to say that Sikorsky says that, "Sikorksy stands ready to work with Ottawa on a “pragmatic approach” that could speed things up. “We are in ongoing discussions with the government regarding delivery schedules and the best way to expedite them.” But, "The Canadian government recently sent a team to Britain to consider the Royal Navy’s Merlin helicopters."

There's nothing really new in that report, but in some ways, in contractual negotiations, it is always nice to have options: Canada has one, Sikorsky doesn't.
 
And yet more in this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from CTV News:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/cyclone-chopper-technical-concerns-are-potential-show-stoppers-sources-1.1452160
media_credits_ctv-news.jpg

Cyclone chopper technical concerns are potential 'show stoppers': sources

Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press

Published Thursday, September 12, 2013

OTTAWA -- Canadian air force engineers and flight-certification officials are grappling with serious concerns related to the electronics aboard the CH-148 Cyclone helicopters that are supposed to replace the geriatric Sea Kings.

That's the word from defence sources with intimate knowledge of the troubled program.

The federal government has refused to accept four test helicopters, currently parked at the Canadian Forces facility in Shearwater, N.S., on the basis they are "non-compliant" -- and most of the public explanation has related to software issues.

But the sources say there's concern that delicate flight systems, including a computer that runs the engines, are not sufficiently shielded against powerful electromagnetic waves, such as those produced by military-grade radar on frigates.

The interference has the potential of blanking out the digital instruments and possibly shutting down the engines.

The directorate of air worthiness at National Defence issued a restricted flight certificate in July and imposed restrictions on the helicopter's operations specifically because of so-called E-3 concerns -- electromagnetic compatibility, electromagnetic vulnerability and electromagnetic interference.

"Each of them are potential show-stoppers," said one source, who asked for anonymity.

"The vulnerability depends on the frequency and the strength of the signal. You have the potential of losing your instruments and not knowing where you are, and having to take visual cues from outside your aircraft to get down safely."

The Cyclone, meant to replace 50-year-old CH-124 Sea Kings, was cleared to fly within sight of the ground only during daylight hours as part of a long-delayed flight test program that was to have been carried out last month in Nova Scotia.

It also cannot fly over water because of separate, unresolved concerns about the flotation system.

The Conservative government signalled last week it is examining "other" options to the Sikorsky-built helicopter, which is five years behind schedule and overbudget.

Debate within the military test community has revolved around whether the electromagnetic issue is a fatal blow to the program, since the Cyclone's design was based on a less-rugged civilian variant.

"The aircraft was not designed from the ground up with this kind of shielding in mind," said the source. "Military aircraft, the skin of military aircraft, are sometimes embedded with a fine copper screen or mesh to prevent the intrusion of electromagnetic interference."

There are potential fixes, according to several defence sources.

One solution could involve retroactively installing screens around sensitive electronics, but that could add as much as 136 kilograms to the weight of the helicopter. That worries engineers who have long been concerned whether the Cyclone's engine is powerful enough to comfortably lift its existing weight.

Both Sikorsky and National Defence were asked to comment on the technical concerns, and given specific detailed questions.

"Our contractual agreement with the Canadian government precludes us from publicly discussing technical aspects of the program," Sikorsky spokesman Paul Jackson responded in an email. "Since your questions pertain to such aspects, I will have to decline to comment on them."

Public Works, which manages the contract on behalf of Defence, ducked the issue.

"The government expects suppliers to meet their contractual obligations and Canada will not accept the helicopters until contractual requirements are met," Annie Trepanier, the manager of media relations at Public Works said in an email.

"The government of Canada continues to work with Sikorsky in respect to the contract."

The National Defence website says the aircraft is built with an aluminum frame to withstand high-intensity radio frequencies, but those are only one form of electromagnetic energy.

Defence expert Michael Byers, of the University of British Columbia, documented the Conservative government's struggles with the Cyclones in a report earlier this year.

The public deserves straight answers about the $5.7-billion program, he said.

"At some point, someone should say enough is enough," said Byers. "The question is, when are they going to stop messing around and deliver a highly functioning maritime helicopter for the men and women of the Canadian Forces?"

The Cyclones were supposed to be on the flight line in 2008, but Sikorsky has delivered only a handful of choppers for testing.

Former auditor general Sheila Fraser trashed the program a few years ago in a report that set out in painstaking detail how Paul Martin's Liberal government agreed to buy the Cyclones, even though the military version had not been developed.

The theme cropped up again last week in a leaked independent report that the Harper government commissioned. The analysis said the helicopters were essentially still in development and the federal government should attempt to salvage program within 90 days.

The air force recently sent a team to look at the runner up in the 2003-04 competition, the EW-1 Merlin, and a Public Works official said they are considering aircraft "other" than the Cyclone.

Byers said cancelling the program might actually boost the political stature of the Conservatives.

"The Cyclone was selected by a Liberal government and they have the political room to say, we tried, but the fundamental flaw in this procurement was just too serious," said Byers, who ran for the federal NDP in 2008.


Well, will wonders never cease? I agree with Michael Byers: "cancelling the program might actually boost the political stature of the Conservatives," but, were I a senior official I would still advise my minister to try to make the existing contract work.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Well, will wonders never cease? I agree with Michael Byers: "cancelling the program might actually boost the political stature of the Conservatives," but, were I a senior official I would still advise my minister to try to make the existing contract work.
It appears the political decision makers are preparing the info/political battlefield for a cancellation, though, with all the "sources that shall not be named" crowing like barnyard roosters.
 
milnews.ca said:
It appears the political decision makers are preparing the info/political battlefield for a cancellation, though, with all the "sources that shall not be named" crowing like barnyard roosters.
In agree completely.  The are preparing the ground for the new budget and re-release of the CFDS.  Buddy of mine who is a Sea King pilot told me months ago that all options were on the table for the season king replacement.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
And yet more in this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from CTV News:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/cyclone-chopper-technical-concerns-are-potential-show-stoppers-sources-1.1452160

Well, will wonders never cease? I agree with Michael Byers: "cancelling the program might actually boost the political stature of the Conservatives," but, were I a senior official I would still advise my minister to try to make the existing contract work.
why? other than to reduce the price and haste delivery...
 
Back
Top