Ongoing Sea King Replacement Debacle Thread

[CaptainCrunch]

Pretty much at this point in this whole mess they'll accept it now and build on it for later, pretty much like we did with the CF-18's and the issues with the frigates.

But the Sea Kings had to be retired

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Why are we so bad at buying equipment?

I'm going to say that it has a lot to do with politics. Our government and its opposition typically take opposite stances on just about everything for no other reason than "just because". It's really annoying.

Libs:"We're keeping the sea kings"
Cons:"bad idea"
Libs:"OK, we're buying new"
Cons:"bad idea"
(government changes)
Cons:"we need helicopters"
Libs:"what a terrible idea"

yadayadayada

Although I really don't know what happened with those awesome submarines we bought. Those sure proved to be handy.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Pretty sure we don't have any ASW avionics in those 6 birds yet. Basically, they up, down, forwards and back.

Here's a list of things the government traded off for this June acceptance.


- The ability to secure the helicopter's ramp in various positions during flight.
- Crew comfort systems during extreme temperature operations.
- Unobstructed hand and foot holds for technicians to conduct maintenance.
- The ability to self start in very cold weather.
- Cockpit ergonomics factors.
- A system to automatically deploy personnel life rafts in emergency situations.
- 30 min dry run capability in the event of oil loss.

The last two are disturbing for a marine helo.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

I'm going to say that it has a lot to do with politics. Our government and its opposition typically take opposite stances on just about everything for no other reason than "just because". It's really annoying.

Libs:"We're keeping the sea kings"
Cons:"bad idea"
Libs:"OK, we're buying new"
Cons:"bad idea"
(government changes)
Cons:"we need helicopters"
Libs:"what a terrible idea"

yadayadayada

Although I really don't know what happened with those awesome submarines we bought. Those sure proved to be handy.

I think you're missing some steps

Con government - "We're buying these helicopters to replace the sea kings, they're a great fit and cost a bit extra

Libs come in to government - We're going to punitively cancel the helicopter program to show dose guys, we're going to play a huge penalty fee and then sit on the file for years. We'll keep making the forces members ride in lawn darts

Cons come to government - Now we're f%%ked we need to buy helicopters

Cons - ok the procurement process is killing this and the helicopters that we want aren't available we'll go with a lesser copter then the original purchase to save bucks. But it will look good to the public when we take pictures in front of shiny new but kinda incomplete helicopters.

Libs - This is all your fault

Cons - You started it


Libs - Nertz on you

Cons - Double Dumba%% on you.


Cons - New helicopters are here and there's problems

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Libs come in to government - We're going to punitively cancel the helicopter program to show dose guys, we're going to play a huge penalty fee and then sit on the file for years. We'll keep making the forces members ride in lawn darts

Cons come to government - Now we're f%%ked we need to buy helicopters

You missed a step in there where the Libs finally decided to order some helicopters, but they couldn't order the ones they had cancelled because that would look bad, so they ordered the junk we are getting today. At this point in history we should be looking at eventually replacing our fleet of EH101's.

[CaptainCrunch]

Yeah I was too busy looking up how to spell nertz

[speede5]

The run dry capability is a red herring, the probability of losing all the oil is so remote that DND has accepted it. There is a very intricate web of risk management in DND that would not accept this aircraft if it was unsafe.

There are some deficiencies, and I'm sure we will hear a lot of offhand coments, but in the end this is a good thing for our forces.

With all the delays and red tape involved in these large equipment purchases, it is extremely difficult t be on the leading edge and at some point you have to take what is on the market and adapt to your use.

We had obsolesence issues with the Hawk and Harvard within a couple years of delivery, for an aircraft that is supposed to serve for 20 years.

[Tron_fdc]

Well this is encouraging. Basically we got rid of a bunch of POS helicopters, and replaced them with some "soon to be" POS helicopters.

At least we're consistent!

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

Pretty sure we don't have any ASW avionics in those 6 birds yet. Basically, they up, down, forwards and back.

Here's a list of things the government traded off for this June acceptance.


- The ability to secure the helicopter's ramp in various positions during flight.
- Crew comfort systems during extreme temperature operations.
- Unobstructed hand and foot holds for technicians to conduct maintenance.
- The ability to self start in very cold weather.
- Cockpit ergonomics factors.
- A system to automatically deploy personnel life rafts in emergency situations.
- 30 min dry run capability in the event of oil loss.

The last two are disturbing for a marine helo.

Confused then...

When asked if the new Cyclones have the ability to fly without lubricant for 30 minutes, Kenney said yes.

Where did you get your info?

[automaton 3]

The AW101 was the right machine back then, and it probably still is now. It must have been very embarrassing for the Liberals when the SAR version won that competition and we ended up buying some AW101's anyhow, but in a stripped down version.

On the plus side, sounds like some of the Kestrel birds we bought from the US out of the cancelled Marine One program might be retrofitted for SAR and put into use.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Confused then...

Where did you get your info?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sea-...ment-1.2684036

My guess is that Kenney is saying "Do they have this capability? - yes!*"

(* eventually - just like ASW capabilities and the desired engine shaft horsepower ratings.)

Kind of like this:

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Lockheed to buy Sikorsky from United Technologies (maker of the S-92) for a cool $9B....

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...sky-black-hawk