Helicopter Deal - F-35 All Over Again?

[Mighty AC]

In short, the Minister of Transport, Denis Lebel, granted a Quebec helicopter manufacturer (Bell Helicopter) an aviation regulations exemption that provide an unfair advantage. As it turns out Lebel is also the Economic Development Minister for Quebec, and now the advantage has left Bell as the only company in the running for a $200M contract, that will total near $1B after maintenance is included.

Eurocopter, which produces helicopters in Fort Erie, Ontario has filed a lawsuit.

"The controversial weight exemption was granted in the face of pleas from Tory MP Rick Dykstra, who urged the Minister to abandon the plan for fear it would “undermine our commitment to a fair procurement environment … [and] risk damaging the integrity of Transport Canada, due to the perception of collusion with a Canadian company in the absence of any clear public interest,” according to a letter obtained by the National Post."

The snowballing list of scandals and controversies associated with this government seem to suggest that they've reached the inevitable, arrogant, end phase of rule. The "power corrupts" law always seems to hold true, doesn't it?

‘It’s the F-35s all over again’: MPs question Ottawa’s $200M helicopter contract as competitor files suit

[PIK]

Another chretien mess harper is trying to clean up.

[Mighty AC]

By picking favourites in the procurement process for political gain?

[Guest Derek L]

By picking favourites in the procurement process for political gain?

What political gain? You understand Bell’s plant is in Quebec (Mirabel), in a NDP riding……Not like the Conservatives really have high expectations of picking up support there……..versus the losing entry, which is located in a Conservative riding in Southern Ontario………A place key to Conservative prospects….

What the presumed “advantage”, garnered through a weight (500lbs) exemption by Transport Canada, and will happen in the United States by the FAA, is one that allows the Bell 429, a modernized and slightly larger (500lbs) version of the classic Bell 206, to be categorized as a light (also called “normal” by the FAA) helicopter, as opposed to, in FAA parlance, “transport category”…..

The actual difference between light & transport rotorcraft? A requirement for the “larger” transport category to have two aircrew, amongst other multiple redundancies, up to and including two engines (but there are exemptions already allowing for a single engine aircraft to fall under the “transport”, or performance group B category)………Now the Bell 429 does have twin engines, double and triple redundancies all incorporated into a smaller airframe (500 lbs heavier then the JetRanger size helicopters)

Now the sour grapes from the other two manufactures is that they both offered a slightly smaller (and older) design to compete, not only in the Coast Guard competition, but also in the civil aviation market…against Bell’s (relatively new design) 429, a helicopter with all the safety features of a larger helicopter, incorporated into smaller and more fuel efficient design.

Bell’s competitors want this Helicopter:

To be kept in the same category as helicopters such as these:

Of course the comparison is ridiculous when Bell’s 429 aircraft is going to be competing for market share in the light civil aviation category with customers like police and paramedical flights, news organizations, agriculture and private aviation etc………In other words, Bell’s 429 will have the safety redundancies associated with larger helicopters, well their two major competitors don’t……all for an added weight of 500 lbs….

The only politics involved are protectionism on the part of Eurocopter and Augusta Westland, in that their older, less capable designs will now have to compete will the more capable Bell in the North American market……..For our Coast Guard, we’ll get replacements for our light helicopters that will also contribute to many of the roles currently done with our larger ones…….

And again, I don’t see how the Conservatives stand to gain, when the Bell helicopter is built in a Federal riding that they don’t have a hope in hell of ever winning, versus the Eurocopter, that’s built in a already Conservative riding……

[waldo]

What political gain? You understand Bell’s plant is in Quebec (Mirabel), in a NDP riding……Not like the Conservatives really have high expectations of picking up support there……..versus the losing entry, which is located in a Conservative riding in Southern Ontario………A place key to Conservative prospects….

so..... since there's only one bidder left, are you stating Harper Conservatives won't use this as a vehicle to promote its efforts to secure contracts/employment for Quebec, at large?

.

What the presumed “advantage”, garnered through a weight (500lbs) exemption by Transport Canada, and will happen in the United States by the FAA, is one that allows the Bell 429, a modernized and slightly larger (500lbs) version of the classic Bell 206, to be categorized as a light (also called “normal” by the FAA) helicopter, as opposed to, in FAA parlance, “transport category”…

you seem quite sure the FAA will also grant an exception - why so, given it rejected the request once already? Do you foresee a complete restructuring of the weight limits for both light & transport category's... or will the granted exception remain singularly to Bell's advantage?

.

[waldo]

Another chretien mess harper is trying to clean up.

apparently... whether one agrees with your statement or not, you don't recognize/understand the Coast Guard is not the same thing as the Air Force!

[Wilber]

you seem quite sure the FAA will also grant an exception - why so, given it rejected the request once already? Do you foresee a complete restructuring of the weight limits for both light & transport category's... or will the granted exception remain singularly to Bell's advantage?

.

Seems to me the Coast Guard, not being a civil aviation company, could operate them any way they want. The FAA do not regulate how we operate our military aircraft. I don't really see why they would need an exemption at all. If it's the right machine for their needs, get it.

[AlienB]

I don't get why they don't just build their own stuff with unemployed workers. If all these companies are closing down theres got to be skill labour to scoop up. The government should be able to make its own stuff. Why do tax dollars always have to be funneled to private enterprises for their profit? Let the private sector run itself but leave public dollars to the public.

If no one party profits then there is no scandal. it may sound real complex but some basic manufacturing tools could be retooled with each government work order needed.

these contracts will go ahead anyway because the government can't run doing nothing right yet, but personally I think that this tax the public and give it away to the rich stuff needs to stop. especially when there is favouritism. its just a form of embezzlement.

Edited June 22, 2013 by AlienB

[Signals.Cpl]

I don't get why they don't just build their own stuff with unemployed workers. If all these companies are closing down theres got to be skill labour to scoop up. The government should be able to make its own stuff. Why do tax dollars always have to be funneled to private enterprises for their profit? Let the private sector run itself but leave public dollars to the public.

Because the government would have to build up the infrastructure to first build and then supply its small number of aircraft from its own factories which will be much more expensive in both the short term and the long term. This does not even account for the fact that we would then have to design our own aircraft which gets a bit more expensive as well.

If no one party profits then there is no scandal. it may sound real complex but some basic manufacturing tools could be retooled with each government work order needed.

So are you suggesting that the government build a military industry complex that will be essentially a jack of all trades but master of none? It will be much more expensive, less efficient and will produce an overall substandard product for the needs of the government and its individual departments.

these contracts will go ahead anyway because the government can't run doing nothing right yet, but personally I think that this tax the public and give it away to the rich stuff needs to stop. especially when there is favouritism. its just a form of embezzlement.

And you think that creating a government company that builds all of our kit and equipment would solve this? How exactly?

Edited June 22, 2013 by Signals.Cpl

[Guest Derek L]

so..... since there's only one bidder left, are you stating Harper Conservatives won't use this as a vehicle to promote its efforts to secure contracts/employment for Quebec, at large?

.

BHTCL doesn’t need Canadian Government largess to stay afloat……..Since they employ over 2000 Quebecers in high skilled, high paying jobs, that produce the entire civil aviation component for Bell Helicopters, with an average of over 200 helicopters produced a year.

you seem quite sure the FAA will also grant an exception - why so, given it rejected the request once already? Do you foresee a complete restructuring of the weight limits for both light & transport category's... or will the granted exception remain singularly to Bell's advantage?

Why the FAA will grant the exemption? Several reasons, first they have already granted such exemptions, on a case by case basis, including past Bell helicopters (Hello Bell 204 “Huey”). Second, during the hearing last summer, the FAA acknowledged that the process and standards are antiquated, and on the case of “unfair competition”, the FAA noted EuroCopters complaint was frivolous, since they already hold ~75-80% of the market share in the light civil helicopter field.

At the end of the day, it’s a American (with large Canadian component) company and said weight exemption has already been granted in 17 countries, namely Australia, New Zealand, Israel, China, Brazil and India to name a few……..That’s not to say that the EU would grant such a exemption, but of course they’re looking out for European helicopter manufactures, namely Eurocopter and AugstaWestland…..

[Guest Derek L]

Seems to me the Coast Guard, not being a civil aviation company, could operate them any way they want. The FAA do not regulate how we operate our military aircraft. I don't really see why they would need an exemption at all. If it's the right machine for their needs, get it.

Actually the Canadian Coast Guard, unlike the American one, is governed under Transport Canada rules and regulations……..Also, Coast Guard pilots are actually employed by Transport Canada…….One of the reasons why DND aircraft and not the Coast Guards, are used for primary airborne SAR.

[Guest Derek L]

And in other Canadian rotary wing news:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/06/25/pol-sea-king-replacement-contract-sikorsky.html

The decades-long project to replace Canada's 50-year-old Sea King helicopters has hit another snag, with the government now hiring an independent expert to study whether helicopter-maker Sikorsky is even capable of delivering a replacement as promised.

CBC News has learned that Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose has gone outside government and hired a consultant to study Sikorsky's work, and Canada's contract, to determine whether it's even possible for the U.S. helicopter giant to deliver the aircraft Canada ordered.

Thank the past Liberal Government and their (political) decision to not replace the Sea Kings with Cadillac EH-101/AW-101 in 2004.……..clearly the EH-101 was the best choice originally under Mulroney, then again under PM PM……………Will it be given a third life under PM Harper? The Sea Kings will start turning 50 this fall……

Meanwhile, Harper’s helicopter procurement program:

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/media-advisory-delivery-of-canadas-first-ch-147f-chinook-helicopter-1805719.htm

Just under four years from deal signed to initial delivery…..and on budget.

Now as it’s been reported, the Canadian Air Force purchased former surplus airframes from the Americans, from their cancelled Marine 1 program, to be used as a parts source for our Cormorant (a variant of the EH-101) SAR fleet……….a response to Chrétien’s substandard purchase deal of the Cormorant, which included minuscule spare parts inventory and sub-contracted maintenance………

Now if the Cyclone purchase does get binned, there is nothing stopping us in resuscitating the former American version of the EH-101 (that we already bought as a parts source), aptly named the US-101 and later changed to the VH-71 Krestel……Funny enough, the VH-71 was to be produced by a partnership of the AugstaWestland (the original builder of the EH-101), Bell Helicopters (Bonjour Quebec) and none other then Lockheed Martin

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/us101/

I smell an omnibus renewal of the RCAF afoot

[bush_cheney2004]

And in other Canadian rotary wing news:

Thanks for the update. It never ceases to amaze me how such rotary winged aircraft procurements vexes Canada so. It has been thus for as long as I can remember.

[Wilber]

I was at Duxford in 2004 when a RAF EH-101 dropped in. They first got them in 2001 and the RN in 2003. Sigh.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thank the past Liberal Government and their (political) decision to not replace the Sea Kings with Cadillac EH-101/AW-101 in 2004.……..clearly the EH-101 was the best choice originally under Mulroney, then again under PM PM……………Will it be given a third life under PM Harper? The Sea Kings will start turning 50 this fall……

Is it true that AW offered to discount the cost of Chretien's $500 million cancellation if a new EH/AW-101 contract was let in 2004 ? And that Sikorsky was chosen to avoid the political embarrassment of doing such a thing ?

[Army Guy]

Just wondering if the Americans manged to work out all the problems IE tailrotars etc.

[Wilber]

Actually the Canadian Coast Guard, unlike the American one, is governed under Transport Canada rules and regulations……..Also, Coast Guard pilots are actually employed by Transport Canada…….One of the reasons why DND aircraft and not the Coast Guards, are used for primary airborne SAR.

So they aren't a real Coast Guard. They do do SAR but they don't do SAR. That explains a lot.

[Guest Derek L]

Is it true that AW offered to discount the cost of Chretien's $500 million cancellation if a new EH/AW-101 contract was let in 2004 ? And that Sikorsky was chosen to avoid the political embarrassment of doing such a thing ?

Not quite…….but close……..When Prime Minister Chrétien’s government won in ‘93, with the promise to cancel does dare Cadillac ‘elicopter, AW offered a modified, heavily discounted deal of “green airframes” (bare bones airframes) that we could leave as is, install the Sea King’s mission suite into, or buy a new missions suite at a later date…..IIRC, the deal, with the cost of the cancellation fee factored in, would have amounted ~1.1-1.3 Billion in savings……More a Buick I suppose……

Now of course, the original deal under the prior Progressive Conservative Government was to purchase aircraft to not only replace the Sea Kings, but also our SAR Labrador (CH-46s) helicopters……..Yes the deal was expensive, but savings would be found by synergies fostered into training and maintenance of using a common type………Fast forward several years later, one of our Labs crashes and kills the aircrew, and the Chrétien government is embarrassed into replacing them…..and surprise , surprise, the only suitable helicopter is the Cormorant, or a near “green airframe” EH-101.……..

Fast forward a few more years, and with still being pilloried, they start looking at Sea King replacements again………Of course at that time, the Chrétien Government was trying to push through trade deals with various European aerospace (namely French) companies and favoured the NH-90 as a Sea King replacement (well also favouring a deal that would see the Airbus 400 incorporate Canadian made engines)……..When then French told him to take a long walk off a short pier, the need to replace the aging Sea King and C-130Es waned………And as played out in actual events, the NH-90 has been plagued with structural problems and the A400 with delays after delays………

Several years later Chrétien retires, and Prime Minister Martin’s government starts looking at Sea King replacements……..The NH-90 is too small and doesn’t meet Canadian requirements……..Sikorsky entered their S-92, since their Seahawks are also non complainant…….And AW enters the AW-101, and was thought among many to be the front runner since at this time it was a known quantity and we already purchased the Cormorant…….Suffice to say Sikorsky wins by (political) default.

[Guest Derek L]

Just wondering if the Americans manged to work out all the problems IE tailrotars etc.

It was actually AugstaWestland that sorted out the excessive wear in the tail rotor’s dynamic components that caused several failures early on…….

[Guest Derek L]

So they aren't a real Coast Guard. They do do SAR but they don't do SAR. That explains a lot.

Nope, not the airborne component, our Coast Guard helicopters don’t even have rescue hoists or swimmers/SAR Techs……..They can contribute to the search, but unless benign conditions, not the actual rescue.

[Guest Derek L]

And further Canadian helicopter news:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/06/21/ns-sea-king-emergency-landing.html

Military safety officers say the faulty, dime-sized seal was leaking hydraulic fluid.

Their report says it was the fifth time since 2000 that an O-ring or the packing material beneath it has broken down and started to leak.

Thankfully nobody was hurt in the above incident from last year........

For Jean:

[Wilber]

Nope, not the airborne component, our Coast Guard helicopters don’t even have rescue hoists or swimmers/SAR Techs……..They can contribute to the search, but unless benign conditions, not the actual rescue.

In other words, basically the same as private pilot volunteers who use their own aircraft to assist in a search. Why bother, just farm it out.

[Guest Derek L]

In other words, basically the same as private pilot volunteers who use their own aircraft to assist in a search. Why bother, just farm it out.

Exactly……..many of the duties of the “Canadian Coast Guard” could be farmed out……..As to the Coast Guard’s “air wing”, I agree……..We already do it for the DFO:

http://www.provincialaerospace.com/

And as I said numerous times, we should do likewise with primary airborne SAR in Canada……..The Australians, amongst many other first world nations, contract out airborne SAR…..That’s not to say that the Canadian Forces, like the Australian Forces, can’t backstop contractors, but overall, the Australian program has been an overwhelming success

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cobham-catches-a-1b-australian-coastwatch-contract-01695/

And their airborne SAR contractor:

http://www.austheli.com/sar-search-and-rescue.html

[Guest Derek L]

And further Canadian helicopter news:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/06/21/ns-sea-king-emergency-landing.html

Thankfully nobody was hurt in the above incident from last year........

For Jean:

And keeping somewhat with the spirit of this thread on all things both Canadian and relating to gyroscopic precession:

From last week:

The fleet was grounded, then just yesterday the mandatory grounding was lifted

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/07/20/ns-sea-kings-back-flying.html

The fleet was grounded on Tuesday after a Sea King tipped forward and smashed its five rotor blades on the tarmac at Canadian Forces Base Shearwater in Dartmouth.

There were no injuries.

Thankfully nobody was injured……….Indecently this Sea King, 12435 (I think), follows it’s sisters with serial numbers ending in “5” with an unworthy demise……12425 crashed in ‘94 and claimed the lives of Majors Sweetman & Henderson (hopefully the last Canadian sons (or daughters) to lose their lives in a Canadian Sea King) and Sea King 12415 was lost at sea from engine failure in ‘69.…….If my assumption is correct, that leaves only Sea King 12405 (If I’m incorrect, swap 435 with 405) in service.

Also of note, within the Sea King community there is a term coined the “rule of three”, in that three Sea Kings have crashed/forced landed in each decade of service, with above mentioned 12425 severely damaged in ’83, only to be rebuilt and then crash again in ’94.….and to date, being the last fatal crash…..So far this decade, we had a forced landing in November of 2012, coupled with last week’s incident….So if the rule of three is to be maintained, we are due for one more………..In this, the Sea Kings 50th year of service……and Jean Chrétien paid 500 million to cancel the EH-101.……

How’s that for weird Mojo?

Both Sea Kings 12405 & 12435 in better times:

(From 32 years ago)

And 405 In retro RCN livery for the Navy’s 100th…..

And in related news:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130720/DEFREG02/307200005/Canada-Refuses-Accept-Sikorsky-Helos

VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA — In what one top official is calling “the worst procurement in the history of Canada,” the government has refused to accept maritime helicopters being offered by Sikorsky under a $5 billion contract, arguing that the new aircraft don’t meet the needs of the Royal Canadian Air Force

One more quote from the story:

In March, Air Force commander Lt.-Gen. Yvan Blondin told a Senate defense committee he wasn’t concerned about the delays with the Cyclones. “Every time I get through a program or a fleet, there are always some delays,” he explained during the March 25 hearing. “No matter what fleet you will be talking about, the fleet that does not have a delay is an exception.”

Blondin told senators he did not know when the Cyclones would be delivered. But he added that he is “comfortable in flying the Sea King for the next five years.”

Weird.........

Funny enough, the EH-101/AW101 is currently the front runner in the Norwegian Sea King replacement program......With Norway having already rejected the Sikorsky S-92, or in Canadian parlance, the CH-148 Cyclone

[Guest Derek L]

Hmm, the second proposal by industry to the Canadian Government to replace the ageing Sea Things earlier:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/sea-kings-could-be-retired-sooner-under-proposal-from-us-aircraft-maker/article13472242/#dashboard/follows/

The Harper government has been asked to accept the air force’s long-delayed CH-148 Cyclone maritime helicopters as they are currently configured and gradually phase them into service using regular software upgrades intended to make the aircraft fully operational.

The proposal is being floated publicly by Sikorsky aircraft in the wake of a federal cabinet shuffle that has left both National Defence and Public Works with seasoned but not yet fully acclimatized ministers.

As I said above, this is the second time industry has offered “green” airframes to the RCAF to allow a faster transition out of the Sea Kings……Unlike the last proposal by AugstaWestland to the Chrétien government, that would have put forth stripped down EH-101s as a cost saving measure on the assumption that in the future, another deal would be signed to add the mission suite, this time, we’ve already purchased the entire package, it just can’t be delivered.

I would hope Sikorsky plans to add the mission suite at a later date at no extra cost.

At the same time, the aircraft-maker and Defence have agreed to a separate plan that would allow flight testing to begin on four helicopters that have been delivered to the military air base in Shearwater, N.S. Twenty-eight of the aircraft have been ordered.

The very aircraft that have been rejected by the Federal Government to date........

Sikorsky has agreed to provide the basic program and upgrades every few months until the aircraft is fully “mission ready,” but the government — sticking to the letter of the contract — has refused to accept the aircraft until all the proper software has been installed.

Like they agreed to pay self imposed penalties for late delivery ?

He said Sikorsky can foresee the Cyclone picking up some search-and-rescue duties in the meantime while it’s brought on stream, and the idea of gradual upgrades is something widely accepted in the U.S. defence industry.

It’s accepted when the terms are agreed on by both the contractor and the Government.

The proposal puts the Harper government in a difficult position because the notion of introducing the aircraft through scheduled block software upgrades was the centrepiece of its F-35 stealth fighter plan — a program which is now on hold.

Applies and oranges……..the F-35 program was intended from the onset to be one of “living upgrades” throughout the life of the entire fleet, and even the USAF agreement to accept the F-35 without the full software suite is negligible since the early F-35 will still be more capable then the early Block F-16s they replace……….In our case, a “stock” cyclone (sans the mission suite) is not an improvement over the near 50 year old Sea Kings, well also significantly removing a major sensor and weapons platform for our Navy, in essence forcing us to deploy the fleet overseas deaf and dumb…..not a good thing.

Aside from the issue of accepting the aircraft, the federal government and the manufacturer still faces the question of fines to be levied over delivery deadlines Sikorsky has missed.

To date, the aircraft-maker owes just under $86 million in penalties.

A senior defence official, speaking on background to The Canadian Press last year, said the government planned to collect the money by deducting the fines from in-service support payments once the helicopters are in fully operational.

Whether Sikorsky agrees with the plan is unclear.

What a shit show that previous Liberal Government created for us.....