Fed's decide that the 60's are indeed over

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

CBC

waits for captain crunch responce.

[BlackArcher101]

I thought they already announced this deal awhile ago?

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Sikorsky Aircraft of Connecticut has been awarded two contracts worth a total of $5 billion for 28 Cyclone helicopters.

The losing bidder, the British-Italian consortium led by AugustaWestland Inc., which builds the three-engine EH-101 Cormorant, says it will challenge the deal. That company claims Sikorsky can't deliver the helicopters within the promised six years.

Under the terms of the contract Sikorsky will be billed $100,000 per day, to a maximum of $36 million if it doesn't meet the deadline.

Oooo, oh no. 100 000 grand a day to a maximum of 36 million dollars. On top of 5 billion.

Correct me if i'm wrong but I recall hearing alot about how the AugustaWestland EH-101 Cormorant's were better helicopters and the deal from them was much better but there were obviously some politics behind the descision to go with Sikorsky's Cyclones instead...?

[BlackArcher101]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@Nov 23 2004, 10:02 PM
Correct me if i'm wrong but I recall hearing alot about how the AugustaWestland EH-101 Cormorant's were better helicopters and the deal from them was much better but there were obviously some politics behind the descision to go with Sikorsky's Cyclones instead...?

You'd be correct. It's worse than the Cormorant in every way I believe. However, they both met the required guidelines and the sikorsky was cheaper.

Hope it's better than the new transport vehicle they bought, which turns out they got ripped off on and is full of weaknesses.

Here is the (probable) main reason they chose the Sikorsky, taken from CF website:

As part of its winning bid, Sikorsky has committed to undertaking more than $4.5 billion in industrial activity across Canada. The direct benefit of this activity for Canadians will continue long after the delivery of the last helicopter, with work on the helicopter project continuing over the next 20 years. Sikorsky has committed to partner with 170 firms, both large and small, and from our Aboriginal business community, with most regions of the country being home to significant portions of the project activity.

Sikorsky’s commitment includes more than $1 billion in Atlantic Canada — an unequivocal acknowledgment of the expertise of individuals and firms in the aerospace industry across the Atlantic region. Sikorsky’s bid also involves major activity in the West, totalling more than $390 million and involving innovative companies across the region — from Vancouver to the established industry in Manitoba. As well, Canada’s traditional aerospace centres in Ontario and Quebec will host significant portions of the project, including more than $2 billion in Ontario and $955 million in Quebec.

[CaptainCrunch]

I really really hate the idea of a two engined helicopter working off of the deck of a frigate in an atlantic cold weather deployment. They also skipped over any details about the combat sensor and anti sub suites on board, so I'm betting there are problems with that.

The biggest problem with the Cyclone which was originally dubbed as the Sikorsky s92 Superhawk is that it has inherant inflight stability problems which they have tried to fix by adding length and width to the helicopter body.

These helicopters are vital to the functionality of the halifax frigates, I have a bad feeling these helicopters are going to badly underperform.

Another problem is that the Comorants that were bought as search and rescue helicopters and the Cyclone use two completely different engine plants which means that there's no compatibility in parts. Kinda stupid for a country with a limited defense budget. They would have saved a ton of money if they would have bought variants of the same helicopter, or bought helicopters with the same engine plant.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

You'd think the Liberals would learn by now that maybe spending a little extra to get a better product would result less money being spent for maintenence. Or for those problems that 'were unknown at the time of purchase' that seem to emerge, even after we've applied our rigourous inspection process .

I don't like the sound of these helicopters at all, seems like we might be faced with some costly problems in the near future when they are employed...

[Table 5]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@Nov 23 2004, 10:02 PM

Oooo, oh no. 100 000 grand a day to a maximum of 36 million dollars. On top of 5 billion.

I think you misunderstood....the money would by paid by Sikorsky TO Canada, not the other way around.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally posted by Table 5+Nov 24 2004, 12:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Table 5 @ Nov 24 2004, 12:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAllTheWay@Nov 23 2004, 10:02 PM

Oooo, oh no. 100 000 grand a day to a maximum of 36 million dollars. On top of 5 billion.

I think you misunderstood....the money would by paid by Sikorsky TO Canada, not the other way around. [/b][/quote]
I think he's saying that 36 million taken out of 5 billion is just a drop in the bucket.

A loss of 0.72% of the contract isn't really a penalty if you ask me.

[Madman]

Do we not run Cormorants already?

http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/equip1b_e.asp

Why add a completely different helicopter to the mix??

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by BlackArcher101+Nov 24 2004, 12:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BlackArcher101 @ Nov 24 2004, 12:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I think you misunderstood....the money would by paid by Sikorsky TO Canada, not the other way around.

I think he's saying that 36 million taken out of 5 billion is just a drop in the bucket.

A loss of 0.72% of the contract isn't really a penalty if you ask me. [/b][/quote]
Yeah, BlackArcher got it right. 0.72% you say? Yeesh, that is absolutley nothing at all...

[Superfraggle]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay+Nov 24 2004, 02:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAllTheWay @ Nov 24 2004, 02:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I think he's saying that 36 million taken out of 5 billion is just a drop in the bucket.

A loss of 0.72% of the contract isn't really a penalty if you ask me.

Yeah, BlackArcher got it right. 0.72% you say? Yeesh, that is absolutley nothing at all... [/b][/quote]
It's still THIRTY SIX MILLION DOLLARS, no matter how much the original contract was worth. They could get 4+ Jarome Iginlas for that

[arsenal]

Originally posted by Madman@Nov 24 2004, 12:33 PM
Do we not run Cormorants already?

http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/equip1b_e.asp

Why add a completely different helicopter to the mix??

So that they can be used for specific things. Specialization is needed. Maybe the new Cyclone's can do things that the Cormorant's can't.

Why develop the Apache, when the Blackhawk can be used as an assult helicopter? Well becuase the Apache is specificially an attack helicopter. While the Blackhawk can be used in an attack sence (with the right attachments), it is slow and clunky, and is better suited to troop transport.

That being said, if they are to be used for the same purpose, then yes, purchasing a completely different aircraft is stupid.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by arsenal+Nov 24 2004, 11:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Nov 24 2004, 11:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Madman@Nov 24 2004, 12:33 PM
Do we not run Cormorants already?

http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/equip1b_e.asp

Why add a completely different helicopter to the mix??

So that they can be used for specific things. Specialization is needed. Maybe the new Cyclone's can do things that the Cormorant's can't.

Why develop the Apache, when the Blackhawk can be used as an assult helicopter? Well becuase the Apache is specificially an attack helicopter. While the Blackhawk can be used in an attack sence (with the right attachments), it is slow and clunky, and is better suited to troop transport.

That being said, if they are to be used for the same purpose, then yes, purchasing a completely different aircraft is stupid. [/b][/quote]
Your right and I kinda agree with you, except in the U.S. army they may use different helicopters but a lot of thier helicopters show common spare parts. Our two helicopters don't and with our limited resources and budgets this dosen't make sense.

The Cormorants and Cyclones are doing two completely different jobs, however both helicopters could be modified to do either.

I'm still of the belief that these helicopters are woefully underpowered and under ranged for what they're supposed to do. the original 3 engine helicopter that the conservatives wanted would have been able to fulfill both roles with very little trouble and would have been the proper choice.

The fact that we have to continue to use the Sea Kings to 2008 is a joke that shows that the Liberal Government is unprepared, the fact that the new helicopters in battery already require approximately 30 hours per every hour in the air is no better than the Sea King. the fact that we've already had 4 Sea Kings lost this year and yet we have to wait 4 years is a joke.

The fact that Bill Graham is our defense minister is a joke. With that idiot in charge we might as well put our troops in clown costumes and replace our LAV's with 1967 volkswagon bugs

[CaptainCrunch]

Why develop the Apache, when the Blackhawk can be used as an assult helicopter? Well becuase the Apache is specificially an attack helicopter. While the Blackhawk can be used in an attack sence (with the right attachments), it is slow and clunky, and is better suited to troop transport.

The blackhawk gunship varient works exceptionally well for troop support and standoff attacks but rather poorly in a enemy enriched anti armour role

The Apache works well as a anti armour platform, and a forward assault helicopter and rather poorly in troop support and standoff

[Julio]

Originally posted by BlackArcher101+Nov 24 2004, 11:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BlackArcher101 @ Nov 24 2004, 11:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I think you misunderstood....the money would by paid by Sikorsky TO Canada, not the other way around.

I think he's saying that 36 million taken out of 5 billion is just a drop in the bucket.

A loss of 0.72% of the contract isn't really a penalty if you ask me. [/b][/quote]
A few notes:
Actually, it's 2% of the value of the helicoptors, as they are worth 1.8 billion. The remainder of the contract is for stuff such as servicing the coptors, as well as a simulator.
Our new search and rescue coptors have been having problems of their own, as they were recently grounded...there has been problems with their rotors.
Everybody talks about the 30 hours of service per one hour of airtime...without a doubt that is pretty bad, but one has to remember that this isn't like a car, which runs without servicing...our S and R coptors require somewhere around 10 hours of servicing for every hour in the air.
A question on that...does anybody know if that is thirty hours by a maintance crew, or is it 30 man/person hours (ie, a crew of 4 working for 7.5 hours each)

[BlackArcher101]

Originally posted by Julio@Nov 24 2004, 11:13 PM
A few notes:
Actually, it's 2% of the value of the helicoptors, as they are worth 1.8 billion. The remainder of the contract is for stuff such as servicing the coptors, as well as a simulator.
Our new search and rescue coptors have been having problems of their own, as they were recently grounded...there has been problems with their rotors.
Everybody talks about the 30 hours of service per one hour of airtime...without a doubt that is pretty bad, but one has to remember that this isn't like a car, which runs without servicing...our S and R coptors require somewhere around 10 hours of servicing for every hour in the air.
A question on that...does anybody know if that is thirty hours by a maintance crew, or is it 30 man/person hours (ie, a crew of 4 working for 7.5 hours each)

It may be 2% of the heli contract, but in terms of the total that Sikorsky is going to receive (5bil), it's not much.

The EH-101's Canada bought were supposed to take 7 hours of maintenance per hour flight time, as told by the manufacturer. But they are now taking 22 hours, which is far too high for a new aircraft.

The 30 hours needed for the sea king is maintenance man-hours. What's interesting to note is that in 1994, the number was 22, which is where the EH-101's are at now.