Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
47 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Air force worried about keeping new maritime helicopters' weapons systems operational

DND searching for outside consultant to 'define' options for the future of the Cyclone fleet

Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Jan 10, 2024 4:00 AM EST | Last Updated: 4 hours ago
A military helicopter banks into a turn.

A CH-148 Cyclone helicopter from 12 Wing Shearwater, home of 423 Maritime Helicopter Squadron, flies near the base in Eastern Passage, N.S. on Tuesday, June 23, 2020. (Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press)

The air force is worried about keeping the aging weapons systems aboard its CH-148 Cyclones operational into the future, according to leaked documents obtained by CBC News.

It's an understatement to say that the $5.8 billion maritime helicopters project is a work-in-progress for the Department of National Defence (DND) and the aircraft's U.S. manufacturer, Sikorsky.

It will soon be 20 years since a previous Liberal government ordered the aircraft to replace its fleet of CH-128 Sea Kings, 1960s-era workhorses which saw decades of service flying off the decks of Canadian warships.

But even after two decades and billions of dollars spent, not all of the 28 Cyclone helicopters the federal government originally ordered have been delivered.

And DND doesn't consider the Cyclones delivered so far to have reached their final "operating capability" — an important designation that indicates the military is satisfied it got what it paid for.

Late Tuesday, the defence department acknowledged in a media statement that it's searching for an outside consultant to "define potential options" for the fleet.

Retired colonel Larry McWha — an aviation expert who commanded 423 Squadron when it flew CH-124 Sea Kings — said maintaining and upgrading the Cyclone's weapons system will be a huge, costly challenge because Canada is the only country flying the CH-148, a militarized version of the Sikorsky S-92.

Components will become harder to find and may even have to be specially manufactured, said McWha, who has followed the Cyclone program from the beginning.

The leaked documents — a Sept. 23, 2023 PowerPoint presentation and a spreadsheet that details technical concerns cited by air bases and air force wings across the country — show that 12 Wing in Shearwater, N.S., where many of the Cyclones are based, questioned the "sustainability of the CH-148 Weapon System" in the medium and long-term.

WATCH | Weapons systems for maritime helicopters may soon be outdated: 
ST_BREWSTER_CYCLONE_SUSTAINABILITY_clean

Air force worried 'new' helicopter's weapons systems will be obsolete

A leaked internal report warns the Canadian Armed Forces Cyclone helicopters have weapons systems that are becoming obsolete as the Forces continue to wait for the final two helicopters' delivery — almost 20 years after they were initially procured.

The documents, which were verified by CBC News, were presented to senior military leaders last fall.

"Operational Relevance is in question as critical systems such as secure SECURE COMMUNICATION / TACTICAL DATA LINK / PRIMARY WEAPON are set to expire without replacement pathways," says the spreadsheet. 

In a written statement, DND said the air force is aware of the concerns.

An optimistic timeline

"The replacement of secure comms, tactical datalink and weapons (an upgraded torpedo) are all being actively pursued and funding is being sought to complete all the upgrades," said the statement.

Air force planners still don't anticipate getting the replacement systems installed and run through the initial testing phase until 2031. The department said stopgap measures are being considered.

"However, investigations are ongoing to identify and implement limited interim capabilities for both the torpedo and secure comms by 2025 in order to reduce the operational impact," the DND statement said. "Investigation of a limited interim tactical data system is also ongoing."

When the Cyclones were first ordered in 2004, the Liberal government of then-prime minister Paul Martin predicted that the helicopter would be in service by 2010-2011 at the latest.

That proved to be a wildly optimistic timeline, as neither DND nor the manufacturer anticipated the technical complications that came with converting a civilian chopper to military use.

Sunk costs

By 2013, the Conservative government of then-prime minister Stephen Harper (which also hired an outside consultant) was looking at scrapping the Cyclone project altogether as costs and delays mounted.

But the government — which had already spent $1.7 billion on the project by that point and had received just four test helicopters — opted to stick with the program.

Under the terms of a revised contract with Sikorsky, signed almost a decade ago, the air force would start to receive 28 "fully capable" CH-148 Cyclone helicopters in 2018.

In its statement, DND acknowledged that the helicopters have not reached their full capability and likely won't be fully operational by the stated 2025 deadline.

"Given current personnel and resource constraints, it is unlikely 12 Wing and the RCAF will achieve FOC [Full Operating Capability] by 2025," the statement read.

A scarcity of personnel, parts

The air force blames shortages of skilled personnel — a problem that plagues the military across the board. It says it can't assign enough skilled people to the airbase in Shearwater to bring the fleet up to standard.

"An additional reason for the delay involves disruptions in the global supply chain that are creating delays across most industries," said the DND statement.

"As such, there has been a delay in the delivery of the 27th and 28th aircraft as Sikorsky waits for parts. The delivery of the 27th aircraft is expected in the first part of 2024 and in [second quarter] 2025 for the 28th and final aircraft."

A military helicopter flying over the ocean launches flares.
A Royal Canadian navy CH-148 Cyclone helicopter deploys flares in a training exercise in November 2022. (Royal Canadian Navy/Twitter)

McWha said it's significant that the department is acknowledging the impact of the parts shortage.

"Sustainability of the Cyclone fleet has been a problem and will only get worse," he said.

"If the manufacturer cannot get delivery of the parts necessary to deliver a contracted product to the customer, one can only imagine the difficulty that the customer must have in getting replacement parts to support products that have already been delivered."

An 'orphan' system

The problem, said McWha, relates to the fact that the Cyclone is what the military calls an "orphan weapon system" — no other countries are flying it and it draws on a small pool of replacement parts.

The communications and combat system the air force is now struggling to replace may have been state-of-the-art in 2004, he said, but it was also unique to the helicopter.

"Even if it is possible to find a supplier willing to produce replacement parts or repair failed components for such a small fleet, the cost of doing so will inevitably be very high," said McWha.

"This was entirely foreseeable back in 2004."

Unless the government throws lots of money at them, he added, the "manufacturers have no incentive to retain the technicians and engineering to service or support a tiny obsolescent fleet that is no longer on their production line."

Dave Perry, a defence analyst and president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said it's interesting the defence department has chosen to get outside advice.

He added that, given all the problems with the Cyclone project to date, he's wondering whether federal officials are considering replacing the Cyclone with something less troublesome.

"There's been some Canadian allies recently that have done essentially exactly that, moved to cut their losses on some helicopters which were underperforming and look at alternatives. I don't know whether or not we're quite at that situation," said Perry, whose organization has hosted conferences that occasionally have been sponsored by defence contractors.
 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cyclone-helicopter-canadian-forces-1.7079088

Furthermore IMO the Cyclone’s weapon system needs to have more than just torpedoes it needs anti-ship missiles. I’m sad to learn there aren’t even any plans to keep the existing system ip to date. 
 

I still think it’s a cool helicopter it’s just had the misfortune of having Canada, the absolute worst procurer in the developed world, as it’s flagship launch customer and the many subsequent boondoggles probably scared other potential customers away. 

Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

The cost of the new frigates the government has ordered continues to rise even as doubts about their worthiness do too. They are large, heavy, slow and absurdly expensive compared to any other ship we could order. We could get US frigates for half the price and use the saved money to buy subs. 

I don't think we will ever get the 15 ships announced, not at this price. The government is just waiting until after the next election to cancel or reduce the order.

Our Navy sinks toward impotence because Ottawa can't procure ships | National Post

“The lesson seems to have been learned that Canada needs firepower more than it needs to guarantee the jobs of shipyard workers into the 2040s.”

Has it though? We’ve been here many times before why assume the lesson has been learned this time. 

Edited by BeaverFever
Posted

More tools being used to dismantle our security apparatus and make it more to the lefts liking...Will it be used as a template for all government departments ? With all our current problems is this really the best solution ?.... 

LILLEY: Canada's military leaders and politicians have lost the plot (msn.com)

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.

Posted

More false promises by the liberal government, inn reference to military equipment purchases....this makes me laugh, Ukraine is in urgent need of air defense systems, something we don't even have here in Canada, but the liberals promised to purchase one system and send it to Ukraine...that was a year ago...justin should have said out right it would arrive in 2030 some time...and Canadians wonder why our international reputation is in such good standing...we can't even get one urgent purchase done... It is time for the liberals to take a walk in the snow...in fact it is time for the left to take a walk in the snow....let the right fix things, that is going to take decades...  

Questions surround Canada's donation of air defence system for Ukraine one year on (msn.com)

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.

Posted
5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

“The lesson seems to have been learned that Canada needs firepower more than it needs to guarantee the jobs of shipyard workers into the 2040s.”

Has it though? We’ve been here many times before why assume the lesson has been learned this time. 

I'm not sure who he's referring to when he says that. I very much doubt the government has learned a thing. I believe they're just ignoring this until after the election and then will cancel it.

Posted

Apparently the military has gone all-in for diversity and equity in a desperate hope of pleasing Trudeau and his minions. Maybe they hope they'll get more money this way? But the nonsense written in their official military journal is enough to make even liberals groan.

Instead — in a signal of just how far the Canadian Armed Forces has embraced far-left “anti-racist” ideology — the entire issue is devoted to how the Canadian military is a racist, patriarchal den of colonialist oppression that needs to be torn down and remade from scratch.

“With this special issue we provide readers with insights and recommendations for meaningful military culture change,” reads an introduction.

The issue lacks the journal sections typically devoted to strategy or military history. Instead, it’s a series of 13 essays all devoted to what an introduction describes as a “feminist intersectional trauma-informed approach to reimagine and transform CAF culture.”

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/first-reading-the-canadian-militarys-all-in-embrace-of-far-left-anti-oppression-dogma

Posted

Why on Earth can't we simply admit we're utterly useless at this and contract out our defence to an ally? 

By the time we announce a date we plan on catching up everyone else will be upgrading to their 2nd or 3rd generation battle-bots and drones.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

More false promises by the liberal government, inn reference to military equipment purchases....this makes me laugh, Ukraine is in urgent need of air defense systems, something we don't even have here in Canada, but the liberals promised to purchase one system and send it to Ukraine...that was a year ago...justin should have said out right it would arrive in 2030 some time...and Canadians wonder why our international reputation is in such good standing...we can't even get one urgent purchase done... It is time for the liberals to take a walk in the snow...in fact it is time for the left to take a walk in the snow....let the right fix things, that is going to take decades...  

Questions surround Canada's donation of air defence system for Ukraine one year on (msn.com)

So the article says Canada paid the US government for it in March 2023 and US gov in turn signed  the contract with Raytheon. I don’t understand what exactly the holdup is but I don’t think “liberal false promises” is the explanation 

Posted
3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

So the article says Canada paid the US government for it in March 2023 and US gov in turn signed  the contract with Raytheon. I don’t understand what exactly the holdup is but I don’t think “liberal false promises” is the explanation 

Was it the liberals that promised this system to Ukraine, regardless of who they are purchasing it from, it is just another example of Liberals failure to purchase anything....

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

Why on Earth can't we simply admit we're utterly useless at this and contract out our defence to an ally? 

By the time we announce a date we plan on catching up everyone else will be upgrading to their 2nd or 3rd generation battle-bots and drones.

Becasue here in Canada it is the entire security apparatus that is sinking or sunk, we can't contract it all out without losing sovereignty...

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.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Becasue here in Canada it is the entire security apparatus that is sinking or sunk, we can't contract it all out without losing sovereignty...

Okay, that just means one less country on the way to becoming the Federation.

Where's the downside again?

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Okay, that just means one less country on the way to becoming the Federation.

Where's the downside again?

Right now there is not a down side, except everything we take for grant today would be gone, any government pensions, CPP, old age, todays borders would all be redefined, we would not be one nation but dozens of little countries not worth a beaver pellet...one would be better off appling to be an American citizen...but then again the US is not going to want a bunch of worthless Canadians with no wealth.....most Canadian would be forced back to work...

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.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Right now there is not a down side, except everything we take for grant today would be gone, any government pensions, CPP, old age, todays borders would all be redefined, we would not be one nation but dozens of little countries not worth a beaver pellet...one would be better off appling to be an American citizen...but then again the US is not going to want a bunch of worthless Canadians with no wealth.....most Canadian would be forced back to work...

And this is why I said we should choose the cheapest most effective defence available which is nuclear deterrence. It's bleedingly obvious why its the poor nations weapon of choice.  MAD has a nearly 80 year proven track record at deterring invasion.

Nuclear defence is cheap, its nuclear offence that's so expensive.

 

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
28 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Was it the liberals that promised this system to Ukraine, regardless of who they are purchasing it from, it is just another example of Liberals failure to purchase anything....

Yeah but they were clear about how they were going to do it, rather than go through an even lengthier US export process just for us to re-export it to Ukraine they were going to essentially just have US donate it and just pay the US.  I am pretty sure that’s the process all 3 countries agreed was most efficient but they’re not making clear what exactly the delay is. 

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And this is why I said we should choose the cheapest most effective defence available which is nuclear deterrence. It's bleedingly obvious why its the poor nations weapon of choice.  MAD has a nearly 80 year proven track record at deterring invasion.

Nuclear defence is cheap, its nuclear offence that's so expensive.

 

So if a Russian sub trespasses through our arctic waters we would nuke it?

Posted
1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

So if a Russian sub trespasses through our arctic waters we would nuke it?

No, I'd not worry about it like like we always have. Accept that which we can't change and be thankful for that which we can.

I'd say pull the pin when tanks have rolled north across our border and religious fanatics are demanding people sing the Star Spangled Banner or else.

Better dead than that too.

 

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
22 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, I'd not worry about it like like we always have. Accept that which we can't change and be thankful for that which we can.

I'd say pull the pin when tanks have rolled north across our border and religious fanatics are demanding people sing the Star Spangled Banner or else.

Better dead than that too.

 

I have a feeling that suddenly redesigning our entire military for the sole purpose of nuclear war with the United States might be sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy

Posted
9 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

I have a feeling that suddenly redesigning our entire military for the sole purpose of nuclear war with the United States might be sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy

That's just me, I'm quite certain many Canadians would welcome an American invasion as a liberation.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, eyeball said:

And this is why I said we should choose the cheapest most effective defence available which is nuclear deterrence. It's bleedingly obvious why its the poor nations weapon of choice.  MAD has a nearly 80 year proven track record at deterring invasion.

Nuclear defence is cheap, its nuclear offence that's so expensive.

 

Thats not true, Israel has had nukes for decades and has been invaded 2 since then...I think you underestimate the cost of developing and maintaining a nuclear program...not to mention just who is going to allow us to have such a program, going down this road would put at risk our relationship with our current allies. One thing the world does not need is a another nation with nukes...despite what protection you think it might give us...

Edited by Army Guy

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.

Posted
15 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Thats not true, Israel has had nukes for decades and has been invaded 2 since then...I think you underestimate the cost of developing and maintaining a nuclear program...not to mention just who is going to allow us to have such a program, going down this road would put at risk our relationship with our current allies. One thing the world does not need is a another nation with nukes...despite what protection you think it might give us...

I wasn't thinking about a program, just a big stick really.

To be honest though I don't think anything can protect us and no one's getting out alive. So I'd rather blow our money on enjoying the time we have left.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
58 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Thats not true, Israel has had nukes for decades and has been invaded 2 since then...I think you underestimate the cost of developing and maintaining a nuclear program...not to mention just who is going to allow us to have such a program, going down this road would put at risk our relationship with our current allies. One thing the world does not need is a another nation with nukes...despite what protection you think it might give us...

Nobody really knows what real-world nuke capabilities Israel has or when they had them. The earliest I’ve read is they developed one in 66-67 but if true it’s doubtful that wouldn’t have operationally deployed and available for use in the ‘67 war, or even the’73 war

 

Ill accept the premise that nuclear weapons is the best protection against foreign invasion bit foreign invasion is no a threat Canada will ever have to worry about. The US is the only country that is capable of invading Canada and that is neither a realistic threat nor something that could be resisted.  
 

Our security threats are violations of our sovereignty from various government amd non-government air, maritime and cyber threats, domestic terrorism, and foreign provocateur/social influence campaigns (fake news, social media bots, election interference, etc). 
 

Actively participating in foreign military campaigns overseas is not a “must have” but there are serious advantages to doing so and serious disadvantages to not doing so. 

Posted
3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Our security threats are violations of our sovereignty from various government amd non-government air, maritime and cyber threats, domestic terrorism, and foreign provocateur/social influence campaigns (fake news, social media bots, election interference, etc). 

Hard to argue with any of this and most of it likely stems from the consequences of the West's conduct during the Cold War, conduct that led to an even greater abundance of authoritarianism, divisiveness and animosity in the world.    

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
25 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Hard to argue with any of this and most of it likely stems from the consequences of the West's conduct during the Cold War, conduct that led to an even greater abundance of authoritarianism, divisiveness and animosity in the world.    

The Cold War, which concluded with the collapse of the world's most powerful authoritarian regime and the liberalization and democratization of most of Eastern Europe...that's what led to more authoritarianism?  What a weird take.  

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Posted
20 hours ago, eyeball said:

And this is why I said we should choose the cheapest most effective defence available which is nuclear deterrence. It's bleedingly obvious why its the poor nations weapon of choice.  MAD has a nearly 80 year proven track record at deterring invasion.

Nuclear defence is cheap, its nuclear offence that's so expensive.

 

Nuclear weapons are not cheap. And they're kind of useless unless they think you're insane enough to use them - despite the overwhelming response you'd get - just to protect say, an arctic island or two or three, or maybe oil fields off the east coast. Or Atlantic Canada. You still need a military, in other words.

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Nobody really knows what real-world nuke capabilities Israel has or when they had them. The earliest I’ve read is they developed one in 66-67 but if true it’s doubtful that wouldn’t have operationally deployed and available for use in the ‘67 war, or even the’73 war

 

Ill accept the premise that nuclear weapons is the best protection against foreign invasion bit foreign invasion is no a threat Canada will ever have to worry about. The US is the only country that is capable of invading Canada and that is neither a realistic threat nor something that could be resisted.  
 

Our security threats are violations of our sovereignty from various government amd non-government air, maritime and cyber threats, domestic terrorism, and foreign provocateur/social influence campaigns (fake news, social media bots, election interference, etc). 
 

Actively participating in foreign military campaigns overseas is not a “must have” but there are serious advantages to doing so and serious disadvantages to not doing so. 

Whether true or not some of history suggest that 1973 war a nuclear weapon strike was contemplated , and i can not find any source for 67 war, but it would be strange to have reported having a nuke weapon around that time but not being able to use it... Nuclear weapons' were of no deterrence for those middle eastern countries at the time, or perhaps those countries did not see it as a threat. 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/israel-nearly-went-nuclear-win-1973-yom-kippur-war-172087

Do you really think that ANY country would agree to Canada using a nukes in it's sole defense against any armed invader...one that was not a already global conflict with nukes flying every where...just the fall out alone would travel the globe....just the damage from the fall out could be considered an act of war to any country effected...and if the globe is at war and their has already been an exchange the couple of nukes that canada would have would be pointless...Russia , Canada, the US, UK, France would all be glass... 

As for the US being the only threat thats not what experts say in NATO where Russia dominance in the artic areas, poses a huge threat to the US and Canada...

Participating in any conflict regarding NATO is a must have...unless i'm missing something, hence why we joined that along with NORAD, and 5 eyes. refusing to participate would have serious consequences for this nation...in all realms, diplomatically, economical, and for our entire security apparatus...it would be a line would would not want to cross...the largest undefended border would become heavily armed...with no consideration to Canada's welfare, or sovereignty.

Not sure why that issue would even come up in conversation, if conflict did brew up Canada would deploy as many Canadians as it could, (that is almost a fact) even if it meant the conscription to keep up with numbers required......as far as not having any useful equipment, we would not have to worry about it most of it would be destroyed early in the conflict...along with most of the professional military...and god knows what equipment would be available to buy or manufacture but it would not be world class, and our sons and daughters would be paying the price( History has proven that several times)...Don't let the war in Ukraine fool you the Russians are far for done....they have 1.5 million troops and plenty of equipment old equipment...those kinds of numbers are still capable of busting through any NATO defensives, and set Europe ablaze...they may not win or keep their gains....in those battles, but europe would be ablaze none the less...

Edited by Army Guy

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.

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,858
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    onegroupholiday
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Barquentine went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Scott75 earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • A Freeman went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Tony Eveland earned a badge
      First Post
    • Dick Green earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...