jdobbin Posted May 1, 2008 Report Posted May 1, 2008 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National Federal officials are threatening to cancel a $5-billion contract with Sikorsky Inc. because the U.S.-based helicopter maker is asking for up to $500-million in extra funds to replace Canada's 40-year-old Sea Kings.Senior sources said the relationship between Ottawa and Sikorsky took a turn for the worse after the firm acknowledged this year that it was running late in its plans to provide 28 high-tech Cyclone helicopters to the Canadian Forces. The government's controversial efforts to replace the Sea Kings, which go back to the early 1990s, are now complicated by Sikorsky's request for more funds to deliver replacement helicopters. Sikorsky officials refused to comment on the current negotiations, but senior federal officials said the company has requested between $250-million and $500-million in new funding. Didn't the military once get angry that the Liberals cancelled a helicopter deal due to costs? Quote
Wilber Posted May 1, 2008 Report Posted May 1, 2008 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/NationalDidn't the military once get angry that the Liberals canceled a helicopter deal due to costs? The Liberals didn't cancel the contract because of cost overruns by the manufacturer. That is why it cost taxpayers close to a billion in penalties for the government to get out of it. Do you think the government should just roll over and give Sikorsky whatever they demand over what they contracted for, or should they fight for our money? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
M.Dancer Posted May 1, 2008 Report Posted May 1, 2008 The Liberals didn't cancel the contract because of cost overruns by the manufacturer. That is why it cost taxpayers close to a billion in penalties for the government to get out of it. Do you think the government should just roll over and give Sikorsky whatever they demand over what they contracted for, or should they fight for our money? of course he does. Then he could say the gov't rolled over.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
jdobbin Posted May 1, 2008 Author Report Posted May 1, 2008 The Liberals didn't cancel the contract because of cost overruns by the manufacturer. That is why it cost taxpayers close to a billion in penalties for the government to get out of it. Do you think the government should just roll over and give Sikorsky whatever they demand over what they contracted for, or should they fight for our money? Never suggested that. I'm just suggesting that the military won't care what the reason is if it doesn't get done. As for Chretien's promise, I believe it was as ill conceived as his promise to end the GST. Once the contract was signed on the Mulroney helicopter deal, I think it should have been fulfilled due to the penalties involved for cancelling. It is too bad that Chretien didn't re-consider once elected to let it go through. As a source said in the story, Sikorsky and the feds are married and will have to figure this out. Unfortunately for the government, it probably means paying more money. I have said several times here that it is almost impossible to get ironclad deals in military contracts. They always seem to go over budget. Unlike other contracts where late delivery penalties can stick, military contracts seem to defy the rule. You're basically stuck. Quote
Michael Bluth Posted May 1, 2008 Report Posted May 1, 2008 Never suggested that. I'm just suggesting that the military won't care what the reason is if it doesn't get done. Yes, you did suggest that. The military is very happy with this Government and their commitment to replacing aging equipment. Like most people, military people don't like being taken advantage of. The Goverment will act in the best interest of the people and the military in this case. A very weak attempted attack on this one. Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
the janitor Posted May 15, 2008 Report Posted May 15, 2008 Let's go with the NH 90 or some Russian copters. We don't always have to buy from the US. Quote
M.Dancer Posted May 15, 2008 Report Posted May 15, 2008 Let's go with the NH 90 or some Russian copters. We don't always have to buy from the US. The NH90 doesn't have the range or the lift capacity of the Cyclone. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Wild Bill Posted May 15, 2008 Report Posted May 15, 2008 Let's go with the NH 90 or some Russian copters. We don't always have to buy from the US. No, but there's something to be said for NATO compatibility. It's not just the copters. It's all the spare parts for the future. It's like being the only soldier in a mixed nation offensive with oddball sized ammunition. When you run out there's nobody who can spot you some. I'm wondering if since the Liberal Sikorsky deal has run into problems if Harper could hurriedly jam through a new contract for the EH-101's? After all, they were always the better choice and they're what we would have ordered again if Chretien didn't want the embarrassment and rigged the bid to keep them out. He always had the soldier's welfare at heart, that man! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 15, 2008 Report Posted May 15, 2008 Krikey! What is it with you guys when it comes to the procurement of rotary winged aircraft? Is it a CURSE ???? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
M.Dancer Posted May 15, 2008 Report Posted May 15, 2008 Krikey! What is it with you guys when it comes to the procurement of rotary winged aircraft? Is it a CURSE ???? There is something to be said about taking your time buying a machine that is perpetually trying to fling itself apart..... On a related note....anyone want to take a stab at why the Bras D'or, Canada's ultra fast anti sub prototype was shelved? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
the janitor Posted May 23, 2008 Report Posted May 23, 2008 (edited) On a related note....anyone want to take a stab at why the Bras D'or, Canada's ultra fast anti sub prototype was shelved? The Bras D'Or was designed as a tail craft, towing a tail instead of a variable depth sonar (which submarines can hear in the water). The Bras D'Or was very quiet under the water when it was running on it's foils. THere were two problems: one was that it was part of emerging intelligence technology that was not in place yet and also was beyond what the government wanted to spend on it, which would've required new ships (the St. Laurent/Restigouche destroyers still being fairy new). The other problem was that they couldn't get the BRas D'or working reliably. UNfortunate. Edited May 23, 2008 by the janitor Quote
M.Dancer Posted May 24, 2008 Report Posted May 24, 2008 The Bras D'Or was designed as a tail craft, towing a tail instead of a variable depth sonar (which submarines can hear in the water). The Bras D'Or was very quiet under the water when it was running on it's foils.THere were two problems: one was that it was part of emerging intelligence technology that was not in place yet and also was beyond what the government wanted to spend on it, which would've required new ships (the St. Laurent/Restigouche destroyers still being fairy new). The other problem was that they couldn't get the BRas D'or working reliably. UNfortunate. ummm nope, sorry, wrong answer. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Army Guy Posted May 26, 2008 Report Posted May 26, 2008 In July 1969, BRAS D'OR was docked to repair persistent foil-system leaks, and a large crack was discovered in the lower surface of the center main foil. When the neoprene coating was removed, an extensive network of cracks was found, some at least entering into the spar and rib members of the sub-structure. A replacement foil element was constructed, but later, it too developed severe cracking.This Canadian hydrofoil project was not curtailed and the ship laid up due to foil cracking, as some believed. Success of the trials was recognized, and it was appreciated that a production class of this ship would not employ the same foil material. I'm not a navy guy but here is my guess.... The real reason for the curtailment was a change of defense policy announced in the White Paper on Defense issued in August 1971, which assigned priority, not to Anti-Submarine Warfare (for which the BRAS D'OR was designed) but to the protection of sovereignty and the surveillance of Canadian territory and Coastlines. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
M.Dancer Posted May 26, 2008 Report Posted May 26, 2008 Okay...the answer is really quite simple. No matter how fast the hydrafoils could go, and then only for a limited amount of time because they are very fuel hungry, they can't go as fast as helicopters. Helicopters made fast anti sub attack ships obsolete. The Bras D'or could go around 60 kts....helicopters could go 115 kts Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted May 26, 2008 Report Posted May 26, 2008 Krikey! What is it with you guys when it comes to the procurement of rotary winged aircraft? Is it a CURSE ???? Yes, aka Ottawa. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
M.Dancer Posted May 26, 2008 Report Posted May 26, 2008 Okay...the answer is really quite simple. No matter how fast the hydrafoils could go, and then only for a limited amount of time because they are very fuel hungry, they can't go as fast as helicopters. Helicopters made fast anti sub attack ships obsolete. The Bras D'or could go around 60 kts....helicopters could go 115 kts I was az little quick ....a long with advances in maritime helicopters were parrelel advances in all weather helicopter recovery and sonar arranys which made the 3 point sensor suite (sonar dipping via the helicopter, towed via the ship and the ship itself) a much more effective and cheaper solution than the cutting edge hull design of the foils... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Army Guy Posted May 26, 2008 Report Posted May 26, 2008 I'm just wondering why the Navy did'nt continue with the tech along different lines, perhaps a littoral capable ship, or SAR, or even coastal patrol... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
M.Dancer Posted May 26, 2008 Report Posted May 26, 2008 I'm just wondering why the Navy did'nt continue with the tech along different lines, perhaps a littoral capable ship, or SAR, or even coastal patrol... $$$$ With the Iroqois class coming online I doubt they have the money. Hydrafoils are hugely expensive to research, operate generally in calm seas...The US invested a lot of $$$ in their Pegasus class and even the US decided that they weren't cost effective. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 26, 2008 Report Posted May 26, 2008 I'm just wondering why the Navy did'nt continue with the tech along different lines, perhaps a littoral capable ship, or SAR, or even coastal patrol... You're right...the technology could be and was adapted to other roles (e.g. LCAC's), but not by Canada's navy because it did not have an imperative for amphib operations abroad, or budget for the support ships required. Longer range ASW and patrol missions were met by fixed wing platforms with much longer loiter time (e.g. CP-140 Aurora). Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
M.Dancer Posted May 26, 2008 Report Posted May 26, 2008 You're right...the technology could be and was adapted to other roles (e.g. LCAC's), ............. No....not LCACs as they are two completely differeny beasts.....One is a hydrafoil, the other a hovercraft.... Hydra foils would make difficult landing craft as their hydrodynamic hulls and foils tend to be made for water and tend to break on land... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 26, 2008 Report Posted May 26, 2008 (edited) No....not LCACs as they are two completely differeny beasts.....One is a hydrafoil, the other a hovercraft....Hydra foils would make difficult landing craft as their hydrodynamic hulls and foils tend to be made for water and tend to break on land... Correct....but I was referring to the mission more than hull / foilborne design. The American PHMs "hydrofoils" were part of a planned NATO fleet of almost 100 units. I got to ride one at Pax River in the 1970's....the foils could be retracted forward into a hull recess. LCH-X concepts look to combine many design features to minimize drag. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys.../ship/lch-x.htm Edited May 26, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.