Helicopter Deal - F-35 All Over Again?

[waldo]

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

of course! You have repeatedly, ad nauseum, said so. However, you have, as I'm aware, never criticized Harper Conservatives for their involvement in the program. To you, Harper Conservatives negating penalties, extending delivery schedules, providing additional program funding... why... that's just good stewardship!

[Guest Derek L]

of course! You have repeatedly, ad nauseum, said so. However, you have, as I'm aware, never criticized Harper Conservatives for their involvement in the program. To you, Harper Conservatives negating penalties, extending delivery schedules, providing additional program funding... why... that's just good stewardship!

And why would I be? But well we're on the subject, care to offer your thoughts on the Liberals handling of this file?

[waldo]

And why would I be? But well we're on the subject, care to offer your thoughts on the Liberals handling of this file?

really? Your answer to my asking why you're not critical of the Harper Conservatives handling of the Cyclone file is... "why would I be"? Nice. Why are so forgiving of Harper Conservatives releasing penalty obligations, of extending on overdue delivery schedules, of funding additional over-and-above program costs, of not cancelling the program earlier, etc.

my thoughts on the historical handling of "this file"? Perhaps you should first provide the reason you're so adamant in continually emphasizing the cancellation of the Mulroney contract. What's your interpretation on why that contract was cancelled?

[Guest Derek L]

really? Your answer to my asking why you're not critical of the Harper Conservatives handling of the Cyclone file is... "why would I be"? Nice. Why are so forgiving of Harper Conservatives releasing penalty obligations, of extending on overdue delivery schedules, of funding additional over-and-above program costs, of not cancelling the program earlier, etc.

I've provided In this thread more in-depth answers as to why I fail to see the Cyclone contract signed by the Liberals as the fault of the Conservatives…….I assume, that when if they cancel it and sole source a contract for AW-101s, you’ll be supportive right?

my thoughts on the historical handling of "this file"? Perhaps you should first provide the reason you're so adamant in continually emphasizing the cancellation of the Mulroney contract. What's your interpretation on why that contract was cancelled?

Partisan campaign politics on the part of the federal Liberals.

[waldo]

I've provided In this thread more in-depth answers as to why I fail to see the Cyclone contract signed by the Liberals as the fault of the Conservatives.

partisan pick and choose, hey? No accountability by Harper Conservatives for their 8-year steerage of this file... somehow, you're quite prepared to criticize the DND/Liberal decision to procure, while you're equally quite prepared to ignore the DND/Harper Conservative overseeing of the file. Of course you are!

[Wilber]

^{Maybe they were just reluctant to start over . Again. Maybe they hoped this thing could be made to work. Maybe they didn't want to be accused of the same cynical politics that motivated the first cancellation.}

^{After all, the object of this exercise is to get the Navy some new helicopters. Right?}

Edited November 10, 2013 by Wilber

[Guest Derek L]

partisan pick and choose, hey? No accountability by Harper Conservatives for their 8-year steerage of this file... somehow, you're quite prepared to criticize the DND/Liberal decision to procure, while you're equally quite prepared to ignore the DND/Harper Conservative overseeing of the file. Of course you are!

I think the Conservative Government’s handling of the file, namely the refusal to accept the non-complaint, Liberal selected, Sikorsky Cyclone into RCAF service says it all.

Like I’ve said, if not for the Chrétien Liberal and then again Martin Liberal Governments, the RCAF would be approaching 20/10 years of service by the AW-101 as the ideal replacement for our Sea Kings and Labradors.

[Guest Derek L]

^{Maybe they were just reluctant to start over . Again. Maybe they hoped this thing could be made to work. Maybe they didn't want to be accused of the same cynical politics that motivated the first cancellation.}

^{After all, the object of this exercise is to get the Navy some new helicopters. Right?}

Exactly, the same cut-off-your-nose-to spite-your-face-politics practiced by the Chrétien Government in it’s refusal to negotiate a cheaper initial purchase price with a then willing EHI (Now AugstaWestland) for less expensive helicopters, devoid of the Petrel’s sophisticated ASW & ASuW mission suite, that would have seen savings upwards of a 1-1.5 billion………

[Guest Derek L]

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

Forgot to add:

http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/jd/press-center/pressemeldinger/20131/agustawestland-to-final-negotiations.html?id=745358

AgustaWestland AW 101 is the candidate that in total, after intensive negotiations, best meets the demands for Norway's future SAR helicopter. The new helicopters will be able to relieve significantly more people in distress, be noticeably faster and with longer range than today - under virtually all weather conditions. Additionally, search capability and the possibility for medical treatment are significantly improved.

The acquisition process started on 21. October 2011 with the announcement of prequalification. Tender documents were released on 12. July 2012 and the offers was received from four bidders on 18. December the same year.

Now that’s a procurement system……

[waldo]

I think the Conservative Government’s handling of the file, namely the refusal to accept the non-complaint, Liberal selected, Sikorsky Cyclone into RCAF service says it all.

oh pleeeese! If that truly was the case, why didn't Harper Conservatives cancel it back in 2006 when the first problems began to show? Gee, that refusal only took 8 years to build towards! Why did Harper Conservatives stumble all through the 8 years, forever forgiving penalties, forever shifting late schedules forward, providing additional funding to the file... that's right - Harper Conservatives can do no wrong - they are not responsible for anything, they are not accountable on any level!

[Guest Derek L]

oh pleeeese! If that truly was the case, why didn't Harper Conservatives cancel it back in 2006 when the first problems began to show? Gee, that refusal only took 8 years to build towards! Why did Harper Conservatives stumble all through the 8 years, forever forgiving penalties, forever shifting late schedules forward, providing additional funding to the file... that's right - Harper Conservatives can do no wrong - they are not responsible for anything, they are not accountable on any level!

So, to get it on record, you’d support the current Government cancelling the Cyclone and granting a sole sourced contract to AugstaWestland for their AW-101, the very helicopter first cancelled by Chrétien and later down selected by Paul Martin? Just to avoid further confusion Waldo.

[waldo]

sole-sourced contract??? No, sorry... I don't subscribe to the typical Harper Conservative no-bid, pre-determined, single-source procurement model. Aside from it being an unfair and noncompetitive process, it's ripe for political interference, partisanship, influence-peddling, lobbyist impact, etc.. I'm truly taken aback that you, that your "responsible/accountable" favoured party would subscribe to such a model!

[Guest Derek L]

sole-sourced contract??? No, sorry... I don't subscribe to the typical Harper Conservative no-bid, pre-determined, single-source procurement model. Aside from it being an unfair and noncompetitive process, it's ripe for political interference, partisanship, influence-peddling, lobbyist impact, etc.. I'm truly taken aback that you, that your "responsible/accountable" favoured party would subscribe to such a model!

Alright then, if the Sikorsky Cyclone is to be precluded, and your (Liberal) predetermination, politically motivated disqualification of the AW-101 being the only viable contender is cast, what would you, Waldo submit as viable alternative(s) in a third process aimed at the replacement of our Sea Kings?

To allow for another “competitive” process of course?

[Smallc]

How dare Harper make Martin pick the wrong helicopter

[Guest Derek L]

How dare Harper make Martin pick the wrong helicopter

And that is why politically narcissistic folks are unqualified to select military equipment, and is why Canada needs to reform it’s procurement process into a apolitical entity.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Derek L

[waldo]

Alright then, if the Sikorsky Cyclone is to be precluded, and your (Liberal) predetermination, politically motivated disqualification of the AW-101 being the only viable contender is cast, what would you, Waldo submit as viable alternative(s) in a third process aimed at the replacement of our Sea Kings?

To allow for another “competitive” process of course?

your reply is outright gibberish! You even bold highlighted the salient sentence in the quote you provided... what does it imply if I suggest, "I don't subscribe to the typical Harper Conservative no-bid, pre-determined, single-source procurement model." Can you say, open bid, open competition... sure you can. By the by, are you actually suggesting DND didn't make/influence the Cyclone decision?

in any case, in your world, when is the Liberal decision to purchase the AW-101 (as in the SAR Comorant version) not a political decision... while the Liberal decision not to purchase the AW-101 (as in the military version) is a political decision??? Warning: don't twist yourself too hard, too tight, in attempting to answer this question!

[Guest Derek L]

your reply is outright gibberish! You even bold highlighted the salient sentence in the quote you provided... what does it imply if I suggest, "I don't subscribe to the typical Harper Conservative no-bid, pre-determined, single-source procurement model." Can you say, open bid, open competition... sure you can. By the by, are you actually suggesting DND didn't make/influence the Cyclone decision?

in any case, in your world, when is the Liberal decision to purchase the AW-101 (as in the SAR Comorant version) not a political decision... while the Liberal decision not to purchase the AW-101 (as in the military version) is a political decision??? Warning: don't twist yourself too hard, too tight, in attempting to answer this question!

Simple, the Liberals had no other choice that would meet our requirements, as was the case with the previous PC government, for a domestic, SAR helicopter…..They did achieve a small level of face saving by renaming the CH-149 from Chimo to Cormorant…….

So, no to the Cyclone and AW-101, what would the Waldo include to foster a “competitive” process?

[waldo]

nice! Your oft expressed preference for the AW-101 allows you to suggest a government purchasing it is not politically guided... while a government not purchasing it, is politically guided! And here I warned you not to twist too hard/tight in answering.

[Wilber]

nice! Your oft expressed preference for the AW-101 allows you to suggest a government purchasing it is not politically guided... while a government not purchasing it, is politically guided! And here I warned you not to twist too hard/tight in answering.

Ya they have been in such a rush to get rid of the Cyclone that so far it has only taken them seven years.

[Guest Derek L]

nice! Your oft expressed preference for the AW-101 allows you to suggest a government purchasing it is not politically guided... while a government not purchasing it, is politically guided! And here I warned you not to twist too hard/tight in answering.

You're avoidance is noted. Carry on.

[waldo]

Ya they have been in such a rush to get rid of the Cyclone that so far it has only taken them seven years.

this comment has no relation to the quote (mine) that you prefaced it with. I was speaking to member Derek L's most selective political influence labeling. My comments on Harper Conservatives handling of the Cyclone have been made to point out the absolute refusal (by Derek L) to have Harper Conservatives accept any responsibility, any accountability, for their handling of the Cyclone file (since problems first began to be realized in 2006). Again, providing numerous penalty exemptions to the manufacturer, providing numerous schedule extensions to late delivery, providing additional funding to the program... if the Cyclone is ultimately dropped, that decision will lie with Harper Conservatives... and they will also own the time it took them to make that decision... coming up to 8 years now, right?

[waldo]

You're avoidance is noted. Carry on.

what's to avoid? I've stated I don't favour pre-determined, sole-sourcing, closed bid procurement. Is there a problem?

[Guest Derek L]

what's to avoid? I've stated I don't favour pre-determined, sole-sourcing, closed bid procurement. Is there a problem?

That’s a unrealistic position to maintain if the Cyclone is dropped, fore the AW-101 is the sole, viable contender “left in the race” as demonstrated by our two previous competitions…….You know, the first one cancelled by the Liberals and the second one conducted by the Liberals that saw the "anything but AW-101 Sikorsky Cyclone" selected.

So, for clarification, if the Cyclone is dropped, the Waldo would have a third competition with the AW-101 as sole entrant……..Pure genius old boy

[Wilber]

this comment has no relation to the quote (mine) that you prefaced it with. I was speaking to member Derek L's most selective political influence labeling. My comments on Harper Conservatives handling of the Cyclone have been made to point out the absolute refusal (by Derek L) to have Harper Conservatives accept any responsibility, any accountability, for their handling of the Cyclone file (since problems first began to be realized in 2006). Again, providing numerous penalty exemptions to the manufacturer, providing numerous schedule extensions to late delivery, providing additional funding to the program... if the Cyclone is ultimately dropped, that decision will lie with Harper Conservatives... and they will also own the time it took them to make that decision... coming up to 8 years now, right?

Really. You had no problem with taking a reply I made to On Guard for Thee on the F-35 thread and using it to demand I read a link you posted that had nothing to do with the statement he made, or my reply to him. When I called you on it, you still wouldn't let go. So deal with it.

You may be right in that the Conservatives should have axed the Cyclone right after they formed government but the howling from the likes of you about how they were just playing tit for tat would have been deafening. Instead, they stuck with it and bent over backward to give Sikorsky a chance to make it work.

Reality is, you have been 100% negative about every acquisition whether it was initiated by the Conservatives or left over from the Liberals. It is fortunate that our military has not had to rely on you for equipment during the past decade.

[Wilber]

what's to avoid? I've stated I don't favour pre-determined, sole-sourcing, closed bid procurement. Is there a problem?

We are not buying new cars or cell phones. There are very few choices when it comes to any piece of high tech military kit. If several of them are close, by all means have a competition but if you already know which machine fits your needs best, it is ingenuous to use other manufacturers just to try and beat the price down if they have no hope of getting the contract.

The Liberals tried to get Sikorsky to produce a machine that didn't exist so they wouldn't have to buy a machine that did exist but was politically unacceptable. And here we are.