Mhp Decision Soon ! What Are The Odds ?

[widgeon]

Decision is expected soon , is the Farnborogh show next week ?.
So who do we think the winner is H92 , no service record but its a Sikorsky or Cormorant/ merlin/eH101 in service with some difficulties but a little overweight for the job ( IMHO) and probably higher life cycle cost ( sikorsky had some outstanding DOC figures for the 92 ( still theoretical though ))

 

[Fully Articulated]

Who gives a rat's rear! After 25 years picking it out it doesn't matter. Lets just get on with it! Either one will do. 😱

 

[MagSeal]

I still think the cormorant is an overpriced cadillac thats overkill. Since my beloved Euro product was turfed for obvious political reasons, my vote goes to the sikorsky. The cormorant can sink to the bottom with all its bells and whistles and become a great boat anchor for those ships that are supposed to carry it. Once the deals done, release the sea kings to owners who care, and who'll fly them safely for another 25 years without a problem.

 

[Fully Articulated]

Can't help but notice that you always have to expose that vitriolic agenda.

You go ahead and buy 'em. Best of luck. 25 more years... have fun with that. 🙄

 

[widgeon]

actually the Indian Navy is looking for 16 Sea kings , I think the hours on the Cdn ones might be a bit too high but who knows.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/...00407171538.htm
I know that in civil terms the CDN sea kings would be regarded as just having been broken in terms of flight hours .
I am sure the pilots will be happy what ever is chosen.

 

[MagSeal]

sorry FA....

but I'm a taxpayer, and if I feel that my money was poorly looked after, I'll voice my opinion. Its sad to hear that the relatively young 412's are not in good shape either. I'm not going to assume that anything has changed, and whatever their new helicopter ends up being will also follow the previous cycle. When will they be calling for a replacement of the 412? Next year perhaps?

 

[widgeon]

trying to remember how long the tender process for the 412 took , no wait I remember now there was no tender , no competition and no comparisons to slow the decision.

 

[MagSeal]

so widgeon...help me out here... :wacko:

is that the way to go then? Forget the whole tendering process? Weren't there some challengers bought like that as well? There was something in the news the other day too about the DND and their overspending, to the tune of 35Billion if I remember correctly. Apparently there is alot of things that they are skipping the whole tender process.
If I was any more bored, I'd go and search for it, but not tonight.... 😀

 

[MagSeal]

OK, new record...less than 5 minutes later and I was bored enough to search. At the same time I decided to look up vitriolic....dictionary consultation was necessary because I've never used such an annoying pronouncable word before in my life...see below the story for a definition if you're as uneducated as me....



Out-of-control spending at DND: report

Dean Beeby
Canadian Press


July 13, 2004


ADVERTISEMENT



OTTAWA (CP) -- A new review of multimillion-dollar contracts at the National Defence Department is raising red flags about out-of-control spending for more than two dozen projects.
The report was triggered in part by a $146-million fraud uncovered last year in which the department paid phoney invoices during a 10-year period. The RCMP is investigating the scandal involving Compaq Computer Corp., later bought by Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co., which is reimbursing the money.

Two large maintenance deals for weapons systems also showed problems -- National Defence will not provide details -- prompting the broad review of 258 service contracts each worth more than $1 million.

The review, begun last August, has uncovered widespread contract irregularities worth tens of millions of dollars.

For example, auditors identified 15 major service contracts where the suppliers billed the department by at least 10 per cent above the appropriate amount -- or about $35 million in total.

"Numerous reports of profit excesses, unauthorized additional work," "unsupported contractors cost," and "no proper accounting records for recording costs," were typical findings.

The audits either rejected the inflated invoices or required the contractors to reimburse the money.

The review authors also flagged four other contracts -- worth between $10 million and $48 million -- where costs spiralled by up to double the agreed amount.

"Poorly defined job descriptions that appear inflated," said one analysis. "Insufficient evidence to support payment for software upgrade deliverables," said another.

The January 2004 report is highly critical of the department's ability to adequately police its own contracts, citing shoddy information systems and a lack of high-level monitoring of potential problems.

"We've had a downsizing (of National Defence personnel) over a number of years in the department so there are fewer people available to manage the contracts," Chris Currie, one of the officials involved in the review, said in an interview.

"So that's been one of the problem areas."

In the end, the review -- intended only as a preliminary survey -- identified 25 high-risk contracts that will receive detailed audits during the next months.

The review has also spawned at least two other broad examinations of potential contract irregularities, one focused on goods procurement and another on medical contracts.

Both reports are in draft form, and Currie would neither release them nor discuss their contents.

One issue to be examined in subsequent audit work will be sole-sourcing, in which contracts are signed with a single supplier without a competitive process that can keep costs low.

The review found that 44 per cent of the 258 high-value contracts were sole-sourced, and that about 20 per cent of all 12,000 Defence Department contracts currently active were let without inviting competing bids.

Currie said some weapons systems are proprietary so that their purchase and servicing can be carried out only through a single supplier. But auditors will examine whether sole-sourcing levels are still too high, he said.

A former National Defence employee who now works for the Canadian Defence Industry Association says the department is more prone than others to contract fraud.

"It's a large organization with a lot of procurement," said Norbert Cyr, vice-president of media relations for the industry group.

"There are very few departments in government that have that size of discretionary spending."

Cyr added that downsizing over the years has made the department more vulnerable to fraud.

"There were more people available in the past, in project offices, to do oversight type duties," he said.

Trusted individuals within the department are most often responsible for fraud, he added.

© Canadian Press 2004

and now for vitriolic...drum roll please.......

vitriolic

adj 1: harsh or corrosive in tone; "an acerbic tone piercing otherwise flowery prose"; "a barrage of acid comments"; "her acrid remarks make her many enemies"; "bitter words"; "blistering criticism"; "caustic jokes about political assassination, talk-show hosts and medical ethics"; "a sulfurous denunciation" [syn: acerb, acerbic, acid, acrid, bitter, blistering, caustic, sulfurous, sulphurous, venomous, virulent] 2: of a substance, especially a strong acid; capable of destroying or eating away by chemical action [syn: caustic, corrosive, erosive]

 

[Fully Articulated]

{Insert New Jersey accent} Yaa, Whatever. . . 🙄

But after the last post you had better look up ‘Pedantic’ and ‘Arcane’ too. Could you not find anything relevant to post? Check your sources... Dean Beeby? Why dont you submit an ATI yourself?

If on the other hand you feel the need to save us from ourselves, I would be glad to introduce you to the Senior Aircraft Maintenance Authority (SAMA). I’m sure that we have much to learn from you about both Technical Airworthiness and Operational Airworthiness. You could make a bundle by proffering your sage wisdom upon our uneducated masses. It is clearly your opinion we don't know what we are doing.

In the mean time - mihi molestus ne sis! :boring:

 

[MagSeal]

are you trying to flame me into getting into a pissing match? possibly trying to slam me at the same time....????

Ain't going to work. 😀

I've got my views, you obviously don't like them.

 

[jetbox]

Magseal, whatever you do, don't ever change!!!! This forum would fall to the ground like a dead bird (sh*t hawk or eagle, which ever you like!!) if you did!!! 😀

In the meantime F.A. I believe I exchanged a few thoughts with you a few months back in the "military section" of this forum where I asked why it was that the commercial operators could keep the S61's in the air doing what is arguably as tough if not tougher work than what the military does with essentialy the same A/C. I don't recall getting a clear cut evaluation of both scenarios and so I have to admit that because of my ignorance in military operations, I have to lean on Magseal's side (god forbid, if god actually existed!!!) and say that from our point of view, it seems that the military doesn't seem to draw as big a life expectancy from their helicopters compared to us civilians.
My opinion is certainly based on my knowledge of civilian ops and my lack of knowledge of all things military.
Please don't be offended by my and even, I dare say, Magseal's (forgive him for he knows not what he's sayin! 😀 ) opinion and instead, enlighten us on why things are the way they are!!!!!!!

just kidding Maggie! 😀

 

[Fully Articulated]

Not worth going over it again. If you didn't get it on the other forum, you either don't believe me or don't understand when the explanations are given.

We who fly them; on the other hand, know why they are now obsolescent. We cannot really discuss everything we do with them, but they are now worn out. I'll bet police cars wear out fast too.. funny that.

No matter, y'all can buy 'em when we are done with them and do whatever you wish with them. Best of luck.

 

[Rotorhead]

... why it was that the commercial operators could keep the S61's in the air doing what is arguably as tough if not tougher work than what the military does with essentialy the same A/C. ...

IMHO, the commercial operator has engineers with many years of experience working on the aircraft as a whole. The military, for years, had specialists that worked of specific items. My neighbour is a retired colonel that was head of maintenance for years in Shearwater. He'll tell you a lot of reasons why the Sea King is in such bad shape. The maintainers are limited by a strict budget, overhauls are done by the lowest bidder (YHZ based) and they've been "replacing" the aircraft for years, so they don't want to upgrade them.

The way I look at it, The engineers that keep the 61 logging for 12 hours a day have more years turning wrenches on the S61N than the average Sea King technician has years since birth.

While visiting Shearwater this fall to tour and learn about the V22 and AB609, a group of privates working on a freshly painted Sea King were supervised by a corporal who looked like he wasn't more than 20 years old. Experience is a factor.

Now on the other hand, the old Sea King spends a lot of time shut down on a deck that could be rolling 45 degrees in the middle of the north Atlantic. Not good for her compared to a nice dry, warm hangar. She is experiencing less wear and tear in flight.

Looking at the cockpit of the Sea King, I have to take my hat off to those that drive her around over the water at 100 feet or less searching for submarines, we, in the 61N, have a much easier job as far as cockpit layout and navigation systems.

People like to crap on the Sea King. Well think about it, some navies are trying to purchase them. The US Presidential helicopter is a Sea King. Forty three years ago, the S61A was a cadillac in it's class and has proven a long life. We sould buy the best available now so it will last as long.

My opinion doesn't matter here because due to an injury, my military experience was cut very short. The Super Puma wouldn't be a great choice as it has very limited pitch, roll and heave limits (the gear is very close together). The EH101 is 10000 lbs too heavy and limits the ship's C of G and ability to maneuver (something important in battle I would presume). The S92 is a beautiful aircraft built on a lot learned from the Blackhawk's technology, but it is new and a lot of electronics to deal with in a salt water environment.

Theoretically, the best machine they could have is the Sea King with upgraded avionics, six bladed tail rotor and composite blades. Bringing the engines up to the
level they should be at would be a start, and have a MGB that could handle the horsepower. But that would only make sense.

The MHP contract will decided for political reasons the way that they ended up with the Griffons, Airbuses, etc. The cancellation of the EH101 was a political decision, not a smart business decision. You and I will pay our taxes for a while to fund the $500 million that was paid in cancellation fees.

And we voted them back in... Like we really had much choice.

 

[Rotorhead]

As you can see by the Avatar, I am a new dad. Maybe I am seeing the world through new eyes this week, you might find me a little more vocal when it comes to things that will affect the future for his generation.

RH