Cyclone helicopter contract revisions urged by report

When it comes to Maritime helicopters, the Liberals need to keep their god damn mouths shut. The entire mess was their doing. From the EH-101 right up to the Cyclone.

Own it already.

They should pay extra for some state-of-the-art helicopters because, based on Canadian history, our navy will be operating them well into the 2070's. If they are cutting edge now they will be, for about a third of their life times, moderately up-to-date. Perhaps they will even take us to the end of manned aircraft operating off of manned ships.

Oh, I think there is plenty of guilt to go around on this mess.

I used to think the Liberals made a big mistake in cancelling the EH-101 program, but of late I've come to respect the decision. The fact is the program specifications are based on Cold War realities and are not relevant any longer. Do we REALLY need such a big helicopter - especially one designed to hunt subs? I think we could have gotten by with something smaller, but once again, the CF brass insisted on keeping a capability at all costs.

The biggest problem was that the Chretien government never bothered to temper expectations after the cancellation, and essentially promised a similar big helo for our fleet. They should have told the CF that they could have something off the shelf and/or in development, instead of letting the military go off and design their dream helicopter. Had we bought something else, the navy would already be flying it and this would be a moot conversation.

The current government shares some of the blame too. These helicopters were supposed to be delivered in 2008 - it is now late 2013 and we still don't have one in service. The government should have held Sikorsky's feet to the fire so to speak with late fees, penalties, even the threat of cancellation. However, I doubt this government has the courage to cancel this purchase at this late date, but at this point, we'd probably be better off in the long run.

If I was the Defence Minister, I would be making a phone call on how soon we could get our hands on some NH-90s - if only to use as a stick on Sikorsky (the carrot obviously has NOT worked).

No, there is plenty of blame here for everyone involved.

The ink was dry on the contract with Sikorsky by the time the Conservatives took power. They either had to stick with the Cyclone or cancel the program, pay huge penalties (again) and start from scratch. Attempting to extract penalties from Sikorsky would likely end up with both parties in court, delaying a much needed Sea King replacement even more.

The noise from the Liberal defence critic about caring for the CF members flying the decrepit birds rings hollow, because her outfit bears the bulk of the blame for them being stuck in them in the first place. The Chrétien government never attempted to replace the Sea King, it took the Martin government to come in and get the ball rolling.

One of these days you folks are going to fix your procurement process. Pigs will fly that day, I'm sure.

That's not totally true - the procurement process was started in 2002 under Chretien. Martin was the one who selected the Cyclone though.

I agree that the Liberals bear most of the blame (say 80% or so), but the military and current government bear some too.

Having said that, the current government shouldn't have waived the late fee penalties in 2009, and they should definitely collect on the the current $80 million Sikorsky owes for not delivering the helos in 2012 as they promised when the government waived the fees the first time around.

Of course, if they do that, they don't a weapon they can use in an election to bludgeon the Liberals with, which is probably one reason why they are letting this drag on so long. Partisanship has its place, but this isn't one of them.

Of course, if they do that, they don't a weapon they can use in an election to bludgeon the Liberals with, which is probably one reason why they are letting this drag on so long. Partisanship has its place, but this isn't one of them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are assuming, of course, that the Liberals are going to run head-to-head with the Conservatives and not the Federal NDP. It sounds like a long shot but the NDP have done a better job of lining up their ducks.

... another Conservative majority, methinks.

Oh, I think there is plenty of guilt to go around on this mess.

I used to think the Liberals made a big mistake in cancelling the EH-101 program, but of late I've come to respect the decision. The fact is the program specifications are based on Cold War realities and are not relevant any longer. Do we REALLY need such a big helicopter - especially one designed to hunt subs? I think we could have gotten by with something smaller, but once again, the CF brass insisted on keeping a capability at all costs.

The biggest problem was that the Chretien government never bothered to temper expectations after the cancellation, and essentially promised a similar big helo for our fleet. They should have told the CF that they could have something off the shelf and/or in development, instead of letting the military go off and design their dream helicopter. Had we bought something else, the navy would already be flying it and this would be a moot conversation.

Im not sure agree that we shiuld be scrapping ASW capability or that ASW is to blame for large helicopters. Having a maritime helicopter incapable of detecting anything sub-surface doesn't make sense to me, even if warfare against a hostile sub is unlikely. You at least need to able to see what lurks beneath.

On the secind point, the US uses Seahawks for ASW and they are much smaller than Sea Kings and EH-101/Cyclones. As I understand it, the insistence for a large helicopter stems from a requirement that Maritime Helos carry a SAR kit at all times and in.all configurations so they can respond to emergencies immediately without having to lqnd and reconfigure. Large Helos are also more useful for resupply, transport, evacuations, assault teams, etc. We dont have aircraft carriers with squadrons of various aircraft, the RCN fleet needs to make the most of its small compliment of helos.

the RCN fleet needs to make the most of its small compliment of helos.

The RCN has to make the most of every asset because they are all so scarce.

Im not sure agree that we shiuld be scrapping ASW capability or that ASW is to blame for large helicopters. Having a maritime helicopter incapable of detecting anything sub-surface doesn't make sense to me, even if warfare against a hostile sub is unlikely. You at least need to able to see what lurks beneath.

On the secind point, the US uses Seahawks for ASW and they are much smaller than Sea Kings and EH-101/Cyclones. As I understand it, the insistence for a large helicopter stems from a requirement that Maritime Helos carry a SAR kit at all times and in.all configurations so they can respond to emergencies immediately without having to lqnd and reconfigure. Large Helos are also more useful for resupply, transport, evacuations, assault teams, etc. We dont have aircraft carriers with squadrons of various aircraft, the RCN fleet needs to make the most of its small compliment of helos.

Buying a smaller helicopter would NOT mean scrapping our ASW capabilities. The advantage of the Sea King is that it is multi-mission and doesn't need to land to reconfigure. Smaller helos like the NH-90 can still do ASW, SAR and transport, they just can't do it all at once. And the Cyclone isn't so much more robust than the NH-90 that we should be paying almost twice as much for it.

The Sea Kings also provide extended sensor range as well, allowing our ships to see much farther over the horizon than would be possible if they had smaller, less capable helos.

But my point is do we NEED that capability?

It certainly made sense during the Cold War when our ships might be deployed on their own (or in small task groups) to hunt Soviet subs in the middle of the North Atlantic. But nowadays, our ships routinely deploy as part of larger coalition task forces (usually USN groups) to places like the Persian Gulf or Sea of Aden, and a pair of smaller helos would be just fine against the typical opponents our Navy faces these days.

So I question the for the large helos - it seems like much more of a to me.

Of course at this late date, it's really a moot point.

Is the Sea King still in production?

How about new, up-to-date versions of the Sea King? It seems to do everything that we need it to and it fits on our ships without having to re-fit the hanger decks.

Seems to be answered by:

....assuming you believe being able to do it all at once is important. If you're bobbing up and down in the ocean, and the helo overhead advises that it has to return to base to reconfigure from Maritime Surveillance to SAR and will be back in 3-4 hours,you might feel different.


Not since the 1970's.

They need to stop fucking around and get the damn things already.

Surly, there's a new chopper lot with the right sticker price just waiting for us... perhaps in Helgoland.

Maybe, we should be buying some Russian choppers.