Helicopter Deal - F-35 All Over Again?

[Guest Derek L]

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……

I smell an omnibus renewal of the RCAF afoot

And today's news:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1164936-documents-dnd-knew-cyclones-might-not-measure-up?utm_source=website&utm_medium=mobi&utm_campaign=full-site

OTTAWA — Canadian air force evaluators warned nearly a decade ago that the CH-148 Cyclone helicopter might not measure up in terms of engine performance, acoustic noise and its ability to resist electronic interference, The Canadian Press has learned.

Previously unreleased National Defence reports that date back to September 2004, recently viewed by CP, cite a litany of concerns about Sikorsky’s plan to convert its existing S-92 helicopter for maritime and military missions.

The highly technical appraisals were conducted by a team of dozens of air force engineers before then-prime minister Paul Martin awarded what was at the time a $1.8-billion contract.

About bloody time that got out........

Years later, however, the issue resurfaced when it became clear the heavier military requirements made the Cyclones sluggish and less efficient in the air. In 2010, Sikorsky announced it would upgrade the engine to a more powerful model, the CT7-8A7, and the Harper government agreed to spend an additional $117 million to support the plan

In fairness to Sikorsky, a major wrench was thrown into the works once the Obama administration cancelled the Marine 1 replacement program.

After Sikorsky won the contract, rival bidder AgustaWestland cried foul, citing politics: 10 years before the Martin government, Jean Chretien’s Liberals cancelled a contract with the company to buy EH-101 helicopters. In 2004, the company offered up the AW-101 — a variant of the original, but still close enough to be politically uncomfortable.

Alan Williams, the senior defence bureaucrat in charge of the Cyclone purchase at the time, said AgustaWestland’s bid was “non-compliant” and dismissed as nonsense any suggestion that the political fix was in for Sikorsky.

And the very same Alan Williams that signed Canada onto the F-35 program........And now chastises the program to no end…….even wrote a book

Williams’ comment was met with a firm denial by AgustaWestland, which said in a statement late Sunday that “at no point did the Government of Canada declare that the AW101 was non-compliant.”

“The aircraft met all of the performance and equipment requirements of the original Request for Proposals, then and now, and Mr. Williams knows this,” the statement said.

At no time was the EH-101/AW-101 deemed non-compliant, be it when it was first selected under the Mulroney Government, the Chrétien Government to replace our SAR birds, or by DND during the Martin Government, nor is it non-compliant under the Harper Government........I dunno, it's almost like we should just select the AW-101 to replace our Sea Kings.........

Just saying.........

[waldo]

And today's news:

At no time was the EH-101/AW-101 deemed non-compliant, be it when it was first selected under the Mulroney Government, the Chrétien Government to replace our SAR birds, or by DND during the Martin Government, nor is it non-compliant under the Harper Government........I dunno, it's almost like we should just select the AW-101 to replace our Sea Kings.........

Just saying.........

just another of your highly partisan unsubstantiated posts. As I understand it, significant problems with the Sikorsky S-92/CH-148 Cyclone were realized as early as 2006... is there any point at which you'll offer up any targeted criticism towards Harper Conservatives handling of the helicopter replacement need/program... any point at all? After reading the highlights of former AG Fraser's audit, the scathing comments directed at both DND & the Harper Conservative government, I seriously question if you just think you can say anything around here and no one will check your claims/statements?

as for the history of the so-called politicization of the initial Sikorsky versus EHI bid, you make a ton of unsubstantiated claims. One of the significant points I read is that a key lacking of the EH-101, as identified by DND, was that the EH-101 didn't have a like-capability as the Sea-Kings ability to land on a destroyer... that both it's physical dimensions and the supporting destroyer infrastructure changes required made it, at least in that single focused regard, "non-compliant".

clearly, DND/military drives... or should drive... the government, any government, procurement. Unless a government decision is so blatantly political, as in targeted riding vote seeking, we can only accept that government is making decisions of the day based on input/direction received from DND/military.

this thread's F-35 association, to me, is most apropos. In both procurement initiatives, we have a series of governments making procurement decisions based on undeveloped helicopters and jets; purely on specifications, changing requirements and "promises to deliver". Out of all of that we repeatedly hear within these assortment of related MLW threads that "the military knows best"... that government should simply "get out of the way"... after, apparently, signing blank cheques! Blank cheques based on..... "promises to deliver"!

[Guest Derek L]

just another of your highly partisan unsubstantiated posts. As I understand it, significant problems with the Sikorsky S-92/CH-148 Cyclone were realized as early as 2006... is there any point at which you'll offer up any targeted criticism towards Harper Conservatives handling of the helicopter replacement need/program... any point at all? After reading the highlights of former AG Fraser's audit, the scathing comments directed at both DND & the Harper Conservative government, I seriously question if you just think you can say anything around here and no one will check your claims/statements?

What comments? The Cyclone contract was signed by the previous Liberal Government.

as for the history of the so-called politicization of the initial Sikorsky versus EHI bid, you make a ton of unsubstantiated claims. One of the significant points I read is that a key lacking of the EH-101, as identified by DND, was that the EH-101 didn't have a like-capability as the Sea-Kings ability to land on a destroyer... that both it's physical dimensions and the supporting destroyer infrastructure changes required made it, at least in that single focused regard, "non-compliant".

You speak of "unsubstantiated claims"?

Our current frigate fleet (and the Destroyers TRUMP refit) was designed around the EH/AW-101.……..The required modifications you speak of will/would be required regardless of what we choose (EH-101, S-92, NH-90) for all three contenders have tricycle landing gear, unlike the Sea King, as such, the bear traps will have to be adjusted accordingly. As to the maintenance facilities within the hanger, which are all tailored to the aircraft being operated, would again have to be changed to suit whatever aircraft was selected.

The only aircraft deemed “non-compliant” in the previous go around was the NH-90 based on the physical attributes of the design……..for this, I assume Mr Williams misspoke.

clearly, DND/military drives... or should drive... the government, any government, procurement. Unless a government decision is so blatantly political, as in targeted riding vote seeking, we can only accept that government is making decisions of the day based on input/direction received from DND/military.

Like a Government that cancelled a previous Government’s decision and then refuses to select such decision when faced with a like requirement?

Edited November 5, 2013 by Derek L

[waldo]

What comments? The Cyclone contract was signed by the previous Liberal Government.

well, of course... you give the Harper Conservatives & the Chinook a total pass - of course you do! Auditor General slams helicopter deal

Dogged by serious delays and cost overruns, the two bungled helicopter deals stood out in her annual fall report. In fact, she highlighted the decades-old saga of deals gone wrong in the multi-billion purchase of two sets of helicopters 28 CH-148 Cyclones and 15 CH-147F Chinooks, both of which roughly doubled in cost over a matter of a few years.

We also found that National Defence underestimated and understated the complexity and development nature of the helicopters it intended to buy. The substantial modifications to the basic models, resulted in significant cost increases and project delays, she said.

now, as I pointedly implied, you won't criticize Harper Conservatives for anything to do with the Cyclones; your summary dismissal pointing to the original contract is your ready go-to. As I said, significant problems began to be realized as early as 2006... it took Harper Conservatives 4 years, until 2010, to do anything... and that "anything" was to simply negate all penalties and give Sikorsky an out by asking it to deliver, effectively, a single interim helicopter, one intended to be used for training. Add another 3 years and we finally get Harper Conservatives beginning to look at "other possible alternatives". 7-8 years later, on the Harper Conservative watch..... as I read, as of Sept 2013, Harper Conservatives have allowed Sikorsky a total of 43 months of delivery reprieve and, (I stand to be corrected) no actual penalty monies have been recouped from Sikorsky. And, out of all of this on the Harper Conservative watch, you won't criticize them at all... on any level!

The required modifications you speak of...

The only aircraft deemed non-compliant in the previous go around was the NH-90 based on the physical attributes of the design..for this, I assume Mr Williams misspoke.

yes, the required destroyer mods I spoke of... and the apparent limiting physical dimensions of the EH-101... were a direct counter to your claim the EH-101 was fully compliant. You keep slamming Williams with this "non-compliant" reference - other than your personal comment, and your "vilification" of Williams for his criticizing the F-35 program, you've offered up nothing to support your claims on compliance.

[PIK]

...

Edited November 5, 2013 by PIK

[Wilber]

The Chinook deal may have been badly handled and the government should be held accountable if that's the case but the need for them was urgent and at least the millitary is now operating the right machine for the job intended. The Cyclone, not so much.

[Guest Derek L]

well, of course... you give the Harper Conservatives & the Chinook a total pass - of course you do! Auditor General slams helicopter deal

now, as I pointedly implied, you won't criticize Harper Conservatives for anything to do with the Cyclones; your summary dismissal pointing to the original contract is your ready go-to. As I said, significant problems began to be realized as early as 2006... it took Harper Conservatives 4 years, until 2010, to do anything... and that "anything" was to simply negate all penalties and give Sikorsky an out by asking it to deliver, effectively, a single interim helicopter, one intended to be used for training. Add another 3 years and we finally get Harper Conservatives beginning to look at "other possible alternatives". 7-8 years later, on the Harper Conservative watch..... as I read, as of Sept 2013, Harper Conservatives have allowed Sikorsky a total of 43 months of delivery reprieve and, (I stand to be corrected) no actual penalty monies have been recouped from Sikorsky. And, out of all of this on the Harper Conservative watch, you won't criticize them at all... on any level!

You quote a passage stating the Chinooks doubled in price…….of course what you failed to mention with the Chinook program, was that the initial price estimate didn’t not include support costs, but only procurement: exhibit

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201010_06_e_34289.html#ex6

A little fast and loose there Waldo

As to the Cyclone, one of the major issues still is the engine, and of course Sikorsky knew this from the onset when the then Liberal government signed the contract……Of course Sikorsky could not have in good faith predicted that the Obama administration would cancel the VH-71 program in 2009, and in turn, the developmental funding to General Electric for the upgraded CT7-8 engines that were to be shared by the VH-71 and our Cyclone………This fails to mention, prior to the selection of the Cyclone, we already had the AW-101 in service with our SAR fleet and the British had combat experience with their fleet….

Of course I place no blame on the current Government for a bad contract saddled on them by the previous Liberal Government.

yes, the required destroyer mods I spoke of... and the apparent limiting physical dimensions of the EH-101... were a direct counter to your claim the EH-101 was fully compliant. You keep slamming Williams with this "non-compliant" reference - other than your personal comment, and your "vilification" of Williams for his criticizing the F-35 program, you've offered up nothing to support your claims on compliance.

As I said, the EH-101 was designed from the onset as a Sea King replacement, and our then new Halifax frigates to incorporate it into it’s final design………It would have fit in 1993.….in 2004 and it will fit in 2013.

I honestly don’t know what you’re basing your assumption of the EH-101 not fitting comes from……

Edited November 6, 2013 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

The Chinook deal may have been badly handled and the government should be held accountable if that's the case but the need for them was urgent and at least the millitary is now operating the right machine for the job intended. The Cyclone, not so much.

The deal wasn’t badly handled, the initial cost estimates (like all DND procurements at the time) did not include support costs such as basing, aircrew, fuel etc, so in effect, once these figures were factored in, the price doubled….I doubt anyone expected the Chinooks to be flown by and with the laughter of children or recycled hemp…….

And of course the fleet is now being delivered on budget…….

[Guest Derek L]

Thought I`d add for Waldo:

And to counter reference:

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/aircraft-current/ch-124.page

Hopefully this puts the AW-101 doesn’t fit into the hangers of Canadian frigates myth to rest……

[waldo]

You quote a passage stating the Chinooks doubled in price…….of course what you failed to mention with the Chinook program, was that the initial price estimate didn’t not include support costs, but only procurement:

A little fast and loose there Waldo

no - the fast and loose playing, per norm/per typical, is yours. You've now made multiple references to "on budget"... that's some fast & loose playing, hey? Relying entirely on your provided costs, capital costs between 2006-2009 went up by ~ $300 Million. Of course, when one looks at that crafty DND contingency maneuvering... that's another $200 Million - $500 Million total. Of course, we see the same DND contingency TRIX being done within the F-35 program... there it's a rather blatant attempt to keep costs below that 'artificial $9 Billion' procurement costing barrier, while essentially eating away at any future contingency requirements. Ha, contingency... who needs that, particularly for new development initiatives! In any case, with regards to the Harper Conservative initiated Chinooks, just with respect to capital costs, there's an additional $0.5 Billion cost shift/change over that period... if you want to whine about including the DND contingency manipulation, make that an ~ $300 Million increase. Keep those figures in mind the next time you beak off about "on budget".

as for the full life-cycle costing aspect mentioned by former AG Fraser, it most certainly is a legitimate point when full costing is considered. Of course, it's the same prolific auditing point that finally (also) caught up to Harper Conservatives with their false/misleading F-35 costing presented to the Canadian public.

[waldo]

Of course I place no blame on the current Government for a bad contract saddled on them by the previous Liberal Government.

of course - exactly as I stated. You give Harper Conservatives a complete pass... even though problems began to be realized in 2006. Almost 8 years later, under Harper Conservative watch, Sikorsky has had penalties repeatedly waved by Harper Conservatives and received additional funding from Harper Conservatives... and still... effectively, bupkis! As I said, clearly, there's no point at which you will ever criticize Harper Conservatives for any procurement handling.

[Guest Derek L]

no - the fast and loose playing, per norm/per typical, is yours. You've now made multiple references to "on budget"... that's some fast & loose playing, hey? Relying entirely on your provided costs, capital costs between 2006-2009 went up by ~ $300 Million. Of course, when one looks at that crafty DND contingency maneuvering... that's another $200 Million - $500 Million total. Of course, we see the same DND contingency TRIX being done within the F-35 program... there it's a rather blatant attempt to keep costs below that 'artificial $9 Billion' procurement costing barrier, while essentially eating away at any future contingency requirements. Ha, contingency... who needs that, particularly for new development initiatives! In any case, with regards to the Harper Conservative initiated Chinooks, just with respect to capital costs, there's an additional $0.5 Billion cost shift/change over that period... if you want to whine about including the DND contingency manipulation, make that an ~ $300 Million increase. Keep those figures in mind the next time you beak off about "on budget".

The initial contingency estimates in all defence procurement programs can be reduced as the project nears fruition, fore it should be obvious if any perceived, potential risks have been addressed with time.

Still hardly translates into a doubling of the program in the light that you intended.

as for the full life-cycle costing aspect mentioned by former AG Fraser, it most certainly is a legitimate point when full costing is considered. Of course, it's the same prolific auditing point that finally (also) caught up to Harper Conservatives with their false/misleading F-35 costing presented to the Canadian public.

I’ve only two aversions towards the “new method” of accounting associated with procurement. First the proclaimed “hidden costs” (aircrew, fuel, maintaining the airfield etc) are costs already known and budgeted when a new procurement item is replacing a capability within our military today………

When replacing ship/tank/helicopter/fighter “x” with a new “y”, said “hidden costs” are already known…….same goes if we select model “w” or “z” instead of “y”………Costs for basing, personal etc won’t change.

My other issue is when said “hidden costs” are used as a partisan political stick……..It is intellectually dishonest when some attempt to gain traction by spinning costs that we already are paying for our existing fleet, within our current budget framework.

If they feel such capabilities are not in need of replacement, and/or that Canada doesn’t require said capability any longer, as such a funding reduction could be achieved, have the stones to make that stance known instead of lobbing the bull poop around.

[Guest Derek L]

of course - exactly as I stated. You give Harper Conservatives a complete pass... even though problems began to be realized in 2006. Almost 8 years later, under Harper Conservative watch, Sikorsky has had penalties repeatedly waved by Harper Conservatives and received additional funding from Harper Conservatives... and still... effectively, bupkis! As I said, clearly, there's no point at which you will ever criticize Harper Conservatives for any procurement handling.

Have you read the shipbuilding thread? Several years worth, in namely conversation with member smallc.

[waldo]

I honestly don’t know what you’re basing your assumption of the EH-101 not fitting comes from……

it's a comment attributed to a "DND source"... that the EH-101 presented additional concern (size/dimension focused) for bear-trap handling and on-board hanger storage. You've provided comparative dimensions for the AW-101 versus the Sea-King. I can't find a more complete accounting to go along with that provided comment reference... if I give any more credence to that DND source referenced comment, my only thought is to whether or not EH-101 sizing, at any point, might have been different from the eventual AW-101 name change version.

in any case, while I note you've now made at least a couple of suggestions favouring a preference for the AW-101 (should Harper Conservatives finally step-up to squash the Cyclone), I wonder how you balance that preference, that favouritism, against the RCAF CH-149 Comorant results. If you consider that SAR version of the AW-101 a positive procurement result, one you might even be leveraging in your own aspirations toward the full military application for the AW-101..... does this suggest you might actually even offer up a positive comment towards the Liberal government procurement of those SAR CH-149 Comorants? Sure you can!

[waldo]

The initial contingency estimates in all defence procurement programs can be reduced as the project nears fruition, fore it should be obvious if any perceived, potential risks have been addressed with time.

Still hardly translates into a doubling of the program in the light that you intended.

what "nearing fruition"? In both cases, F-35 & Chinook, DND has manipulated the contingency well before any semblance of "nearing fruition". Within the F-35 program it's taken considerable criticism over the multiple times it's done so... to a point where, effectively, there is little to no contingency remaining. As for the Chinook, that contingency decrease tied in with the project approval... nothing to do with your suggested "nearing fruition". So, again, strictly on capital costs only, that's an ~ $0.5 Billion cost increase, one associated with the Harper Conservative watch.

huh! "Light intended"... that, as you say, "light intended", associates the doubling costs Chinook program reference to the the AG "light intended" audit report.

.

I’ve only two aversions towards the “new method” of accounting associated with procurement. First the proclaimed “hidden costs” (aircrew, fuel, maintaining the airfield etc) are costs already known and budgeted when a new procurement item is replacing a capability within our military today………

When replacing ship/tank/helicopter/fighter “x” with a new “y”, said “hidden costs” are already known…….same goes if we select model “w” or “z” instead of “y”………Costs for basing, personal etc won’t change.

My other issue is when said “hidden costs” are used as a partisan political stick……..It is intellectually dishonest when some attempt to gain traction by spinning costs that we already are paying for our existing fleet, within our current budget framework.

If they feel such capabilities are not in need of replacement, and/or that Canada doesn’t require said capability any longer, as such a funding reduction could be achieved, have the stones to make that stance known instead of lobbing the bull poop around.

except... it wasn't a new method... it's the established method that wasn't being followed. The typical Canadian hasn't a clue as to what operational funding is provided to the Canadian military, whether strictly operational or tied in with procurement. Obviously, the real eye-opener came forward through the Harper Conservative F-35 cost juggling act. It was only when "scrutineers" began to question the Harper Conservative procurement cost numbers versus those coming out of the U.S. government, that the media/Opposition/PBO focus began to shift towards full costing, full life-cycle costing... including both procurement and operational costing.

.

[waldo]

Have you read the shipbuilding thread? Several years worth, in namely conversation with member smallc.

no - I rarely look into that thread. Are you suggesting that within that thread, you've been critical of Harper Conservatives in their handling of naval upgrade requirements, of SAR upgrade requirements, of Coast Guard requirements, of sovereignty attachments, etc.? If so, I may have to start checking that thread out once in a while.

[Guest Derek L]

it's a comment attributed to a "DND source"... that the EH-101 presented additional concern (size/dimension focused) for bear-trap handling and on-board hanger storage. You've provided comparative dimensions for the AW-101 versus the Sea-King. I can't find a more complete accounting to go along with that provided comment reference... if I give any more credence to that DND source referenced comment, my only thought is to whether or not EH-101 sizing, at any point, might have been different from the eventual AW-101 name change version.

And that portion of your statement, from said source, is correct. As I mentioned, the arrangement of the current Sea Kings landing gear differs from that of the AW-101 & Cyclone, coupled with the chin mounted radomes on the newer helicopters.

Not jingo porn, but visual reference for you (and anyone else):

Sea King:

AW-101:

and Cyclone:

As I said, alterations to the ships bear trap, guide rail and hanger door was a known requirement, and not a detraction from either newer helicopter, but the continued usage of the Sea King on our frigates and destroyers.

As to name change, that is a change attributed to corporate restructuring…………..Advancements since made to the maritime AW-101 have been to both avionics and mission software…….no changes to the physical attributes.

in any case, while I note you've now made at least a couple of suggestions favouring a preference for the AW-101 (should Harper Conservatives finally step-up to squash the Cyclone), I wonder how you balance that preference, that favouritism, against the RCAF CH-149 Comorant results. If you consider that SAR version of the AW-101 a positive procurement result, one you might even be leveraging in your own aspirations toward the full military application for the AW-101..... does this suggest you might actually even offer up a positive comment towards the Liberal government procurement of those SAR CH-149 Comorants? Sure you can!

My only compliant of the Cormorant purchase was the initial levels (lack there of) spares bought as a costing measure and the initial selection of the maintenance sub-contractor. I will submit the later was the “luck of the draw” and not the fault of the Chrétien government.

Other then that, my criticism of the cancelling of the initial contract in 1993 still stands.

But well we’re on the subject of Chrétien Government warm and fuzzes, I’ll lightly applaud, with valid critiques, of the purchase of the Victoria class and a unguarded praise towards the establishment of the NFTC……….Oh and of course, movement towards PM PM’s decision on the F-35.

[Guest Derek L]

no - I rarely look into that thread. Are you suggesting that within that thread, you've been critical of Harper Conservatives in their handling of naval upgrade requirements, of SAR upgrade requirements, of Coast Guard requirements, of sovereignty attachments, etc.? If so, I may have to start checking that thread out once in a while.

Since 2011.

[waldo]

And that portion of your statement, from said source, is correct. As I mentioned, the arrangement of the current Sea Kings landing gear differs from that of the AW-101 & Cyclone, coupled with the chin mounted radomes on the newer helicopters.

As I said, alterations to the ships bear trap, guide rail and hanger door was a known requirement, and not a detraction from either newer helicopter, but the continued usage of the Sea King on our frigates and destroyers.

and it was offered in the singular focused context of EH-101 non-compliance for that single facet... which was the caveat/emphasis I applied.

My only compliant of the Cormorant purchase was the initial levels (lack there of) spares bought as a costing measure and the initial selection of the maintenance sub-contractor. I will submit the later was the “luck of the draw” and not the fault of the Chrétien government.

Other then that, my criticism of the cancelling of the initial contract in 1993 still stands.

my only point was that your helicopter related criticism wasn't "fair and balanced"... if you ignored the (AW-101ish) SAR focused Cormorant procurement while at the same time advocating for the AW-101 on the broader full-military level.

[Guest Derek L]

what "nearing fruition"? In both cases, F-35 & Chinook, DND has manipulated the contingency well before any semblance of "nearing fruition". Within the F-35 program it's taken considerable criticism over the multiple times it's done so... to a point where, effectively, there is little to no contingency remaining. As for the Chinook, that contingency decrease tied in with the project approval... nothing to do with your suggested "nearing fruition". So, again, strictly on capital costs only, that's an ~ $0.5 Billion cost increase, one associated with the Harper Conservative watch.

huh! "Light intended"... that, as you say, "light intended", associates the doubling costs Chinook program reference to the the AG "light intended" audit report.

.

Didn’t see this post earlier…….

DND pushed the level of contingency of funding to the left as both programs matured, or came to fruition, as the decreased level of risk can be determined by the given programs progress. For the Chinook specifically the levels of risk were many magnitudes less then other programs, fore the basic design has been in service for decades, with the upgrades to the core of this model (CH-47F) being paid for by the Americans, leaving any “risk” for the tailored Canadian order being the incorporation of the parallel American upgrades to their special forces variants (MH-47D & MH-47E) already in service to the new MH-47G standard. The difference between our ’Hooks and the Americans are that ours are new aircraft with the Spec Ops features versus the rebuilt versions the Americans are using.

except... it wasn't a new method... it's the established method that wasn't being followed. The typical Canadian hasn't a clue as to what operational funding is provided to the Canadian military, whether strictly operational or tied in with procurement. Obviously, the real eye-opener came forward through the Harper Conservative F-35 cost juggling act. It was only when "scrutineers" began to question the Harper Conservative procurement cost numbers versus those coming out of the U.S. government, that the media/Opposition/PBO focus began to shift towards full costing, full life-cycle costing... including both procurement and operational costing.

Of course the Opposition parties and media, by and large, didn’t take it upon themselves to acknowledge that outside of actual design specific procurement costs, the overwhelming majority of the ~40+ billion dollar figure is associated with sunk support costs (Personal, base upkeep, fuel, weapons etc) associated with operating a modern fighter fleet, regardless of aircraft type, and are costs we’re already paying for our current Hornets, and will continue to pay with the operation of the F-35 (or Super Hornet, Eurofighter, Rafale etc).

I will assume this omission is due to more ignorance on the file, then nefarious design.

and it was offered in the singular focused context of EH-101 non-compliance for that single facet... which was the caveat/emphasis I applied.

And said facet would be incorrect for the reasons I outlined above and that the three competitors (Cyclone, EH-101, NH-90) all shared similar physical attributes……..

As I’m sure you’ve read the media reporting’s from several years back on the modifications being made for the HMCS Montreal during a recent refit to accommodate the Cyclone.

my only point was that your helicopter related criticism wasn't "fair and balanced"... if you ignored the (AW-101ish) SAR focused Cormorant procurement while at the same time advocating for the AW-101 on the broader full-military level.

As I’ve stated, my largest criticism of the Cormorant purchase was that it was not completed under the original (Mulroney) deal that would have seen both the Sea Kings and Labradors (SAR) replaced near 20 years ago…

[waldo]

DND pushed the level of contingency of funding to the left as both programs matured, or came to fruition, as the decreased level of risk can be determined by the given programs progress.

no - again, neither referenced case fits your "nearing fruition"... now "maturing" suggestion. In the case of the Chinook, and more blatantly the F-35, DND reached into the contingency to offset increased program costing and the affect it would have on public perception. In the case of the F-35, that contingency fund was tapped (3 times that I'm aware of), in response to program cost increases; done to ensure the overall "unproven costing" didn't reach beyond the much publicized and artificial $9Billion procurement threshold barrier. Not exactly what contingency funds are designed for, hey?

Of course the Opposition parties and media, by and large, didn’t take it upon themselves to acknowledge that outside of actual design specific procurement costs, the overwhelming majority of the ~40+ billion dollar figure is associated with sunk support costs (Personal, base upkeep, fuel, weapons etc) associated with operating a modern fighter fleet, regardless of aircraft type, and are costs we’re already paying for our current Hornets, and will continue to pay with the operation of the F-35 (or Super Hornet, Eurofighter, Rafale etc).

I will assume this omission is due to more ignorance on the file, then nefarious design.

no - as you fully ignore, F-35 operational costing is significantly higher than that of the existing Hornets. As for the rest... it's the rest of full costing. The full costing that, by established requirement, should have been provided by Harper Conservatives, but wasn't. The AG report, following up on and confirming the PBO report, was a most illuminating point for Canadians to realize just how expensive flying "strike fighters" is to Canada... you know, the "strike fighter" that's been masquerading as a, from afar, nation-building bomber of "tinpot dictatorships".

.

As I’ve stated, my largest criticism of the Cormorant purchase was that it was not completed under the original (Mulroney) deal that would have seen both the Sea Kings and Labradors (SAR) replaced near 20 years ago…

nice... you couldn't even offer-up a back-handed acknowledgement/approval to the Liberal initiated procurement of the Cormorant - no problem!

.

[Guest Derek L]

no - again, neither referenced case fits your "nearing fruition"... now "maturing" suggestion. In the case of the Chinook, and more blatantly the F-35, DND reached into the contingency to offset increased program costing and the affect it would have on public perception. In the case of the F-35, that contingency fund was tapped (3 times that I'm aware of), in response to program cost increases; done to ensure the overall "unproven costing" didn't reach beyond the much publicized and artificial $9Billion procurement threshold barrier. Not exactly what contingency funds are designed for, hey?

In relation to the Chinook (or the F-35) do you have evidence to prove the reasons for a reduction in contingency funding on the part of DND was one of political optics and not realization of said programs progress and costing (reduction)?

Come now, you’re better than tin-foil hatters.

no - as you fully ignore, F-35 operational costing is significantly higher than that of the existing Hornets. As for the rest... it's the rest of full costing. The full costing that, by established requirement, should have been provided by Harper Conservatives, but wasn't. The AG report, following up on and confirming the PBO report, was a most illuminating point for Canadians to realize just how expensive flying "strike fighters" is to Canada... you know, the "strike fighter" that's been masquerading as a, from afar, nation-building bomber of "tinpot dictatorships".

Hourly per flight costing……..of course the higher performance F-35A will cost more to operate then the majority of aircraft that it will be replacing……..Of course average hourly flight cost is a figure reached by a myriad of actual figures (fuel consumption, maintenance, personal costs etc) divided by the number of aircraft in the given users inventory……..

For Canada in particular, three (current) squadrons of Hornets will have an hourly flight average less then two future squadrons of F-35s, even though there will be a real-term reduction in operational costs for the fleet.

And really, what is this meme of “strike fighter”? The use of a given aircraft is a political question, as such, with their historic usage, our Hornets were just as much strike fighters in their era as the F-35 will be in theirs.

nice... you couldn't even offer-up a back-handed acknowledgement/approval to the Liberal initiated procurement of the Cormorant - no problem!

.

Have you become unhinged? Read my passage above the quoted line……..I applauded the past Liberal Governments on several defence programs & acquisitions started under their tenure, but I won’t laud praise upon them for selecting the Cormorant several years after cancelling the previous contract that would have seen it’s purchase and that of the replacement of the still serving Sea King.

[Guest Derek L]

As to the Cyclone, one of the major issues still is the engine, and of course Sikorsky knew this from the onset when the then Liberal government signed the contract……Of course Sikorsky could not have in good faith predicted that the Obama administration would cancel the VH-71 program in 2009, and in turn, the developmental funding to General Electric for the upgraded CT7-8 engines that were to be shared by the VH-71 and our Cyclone………

Props to the CBC and NDP Defense Critic Jack Harris for paying heed to the failures of the Liberal Cyclone deal:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sea-king-helicopter-replacement-standard-questioned-by-ndp-1.2420378

The federal government concluded meetings with three helicopter manufacturers this week and is expected to decide by the end of the month whether to scrap its multibillion-dollar Sikorsky contract and choose a rival competitor to build new helicopters, CBC News has learned.

Of course, I could have told CBC that back in the summer

That fear prompted the government to canvass other helicopter manufacturers, Eurocopter and AugustaWestland, for information on some of their aircraft. Sikorsky itself was also asked to present information as part of what the government termed a "data-gathering" exercise.

Eurocopter = NH-90

AW = EH/AW-101

As I've mentioned earlier, the NH-90 is too small for our current requirements and has been beset with numerous program failures.

One of those requirements is the ability to fly for 30 minutes without any lubricant in its main gearbox (a rough civilian equivalent would be driving on the highway for 30 minutes with no oil to lubricate your engine).

This capability is particularly important for a maritime helicopter, which might need to fly some distance over water before being able to find a place to land.

And of course the Cyclones two engines are currently underpowered…….contrast with the AW-101’s three proven engines…..

Earlier this fall, CBC News reported the government had received an external consultant's report that concluded Sikorsky can deliver a capable helicopter to the Canadian Forces if given the time.

The Hitachi Consultants report also suggested the government ought to reconsider some of its requirements in order to allow Sikorsky to produce a compliant helicopter.

And of course with enough money, I could make a Ford pick-up fly.......In essence dumb down power & safety requirements for the engines, the aircraft’s avionics that can currently be negatively effected by a ship’s search radar and allow a untested mission suite, a piece of equipment that is the sole reason for having a maritime helicopter.......

[waldo]

Of course, I could have told CBC that back in the summer

where have you been since 2006?... the point when the first problems surfaced with the Cyclone... the point when Harper Conservatives first began to absolve themselves of any responsibility... any accountability... for this program. Where have you been since 2006 when Harper Conservatives have repeatedly negated penalties to Sikorsky... when Harper Conservatives have repeatedly extended on delivery schedules to Sikorsky... when Harper Conservatives have poured additional monies into the program? Where have you been, hey?

[Guest Derek L]

where have you been since 2006?... the point when the first problems surfaced with the Cyclone... the point when Harper Conservatives first began to absolve themselves of any responsibility... any accountability... for this program. Where have you been since 2006 when Harper Conservatives have repeatedly negated penalties to Sikorsky... when Harper Conservatives have repeatedly extended on delivery schedules to Sikorsky... when Harper Conservatives have poured additional monies into the program? Where have you been, hey?

I've been opposed to the selection of the Cyclone, by the past Liberal Government, since the start.

Of course the true failings of the Cyclone were not known until after the first actual flight of one, Incidentally nearly five years ago from today, and of course problems further compounded once the Obama administration cancelled the parallel Marine 1 replacement, forcing Sikorsky and General Electric to develop an entirely new powerplant devoid of shared DoD funding…..

Of course, all of these problems could have been avoided if the Chrétien Government did not cancel the contract for the EH-101 twenty years ago.