Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Whyever did we buy Cyclone helicopters, or, petting the rotor?

Pricier and very late delivery. There really does seem to something wrong with the Canadian government's military procurement process in this case (and it's not singular); the Canadian Forces too surely are not without blame. If they are not someone should go public about the politics of a deal made by the Liberals-- and the politics with the Conservatives having been in office for over two and half years:
Canada is closing in on a deal to cut lengthy delays in delivery of a new fleet of maritime helicopters, but it's going to mean a bigger price tag, says the defence minister.

Peter MacKay, interviewed this week while campaigning in Sherbrooke, N.S., said "hot and heavy talks" with Sikorsky to provide 28 CH-148 helicopters are "making headway."

The choppers were originally supposed to begin arriving on the tarmac last January, but media reports earlier this year suggested a 30-month delay from the original delivery date, and floated the possibility the Conservatives would simply cancel the deal.

However, MacKay said he's been informed by negotiators from Public Works and his own department that a shorter delay is possible now.

"We will get an aircraft that is improved from its original contract and the timeframe and the costs between our position and theirs (Sikorsky's) have been reduced significantly," he said.

"I feel some sense of relief particularly on the delivery date."

He now predicts the first Cyclone will arrive in 20 months, in 2010.

However, the minister concedes the proposed changes to the helicopter - such as more powerful engines and computer changes - and the fresh delivery date could mean millions more in costs to the taxpayer.

"You get what you pay for, and if we're getting a better aircraft of course, it's in keeping with commensurate fees associated with increased capacity," he said.

"Things like lift, the (helicopter's) ability to be out on missions further, the on-board computer systems. All of those things, there are incremental costs, even over the life of a contract.

"And that's par for the course, as we've seen in other procurements [emphasis added--that's the whole blinking problem - MC]."

Original media reports speculated the increased costs from the contract to replace the Sea Kings could run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

However, Public Works Minister Michael Fortier had countered that Ottawa expected Sikorsky to find a way to meet its contract as signed.

MacKay now is allowing that a higher price would be part of the deal.

"In terms of the cost overruns, we've negotiated very aggressively and we've made it very clear that the initial contract will be honoured but for some of this increased capacity, but for some of these added features in the aircraft," he said...
So much for being the first, and so far only, purchaser of the military version of this aircraft. We may eventually get "a better aircraft". Spin, spin, spin. But why then the contract for the original version that could not meet the required specs?

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe the tall foreheads should look at how the procurement for C 17's, M177's & Leo 2's happened . . . fast, great kit, on time . . and clone those procurement offices methods.

Couldn't help notice this week the A400M team is asking for 700 million euros extra to pay for overruns in the same week they got 2 hours of taxi tests on their C130 testbed.

Big costs, small steps.

7:51 p.m., September 17, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Then again, the Danes might think we have it easy.

http://tinyurl.com/4lpgye

8:44 a.m., September 18, 2008  
Blogger holdfast said...

Surely some Navy operates a chopper that we could use off-the-shelf? Probably the EH101!

I am generally in favor of buying kit in service with the US, since it tends to be volume-priced and battle tested. The LEO 2s were a reasonably exception to that rule.

For flying kit especially, you want someone else to bear the teething pains.

3:28 p.m., September 18, 2008  
Blogger Dwayne said...

Not sure why the CPC is being flogged over this... here http://www.casr.ca/ft-mhp15.htm
people like reporters need to get a little memory inject, like reading articles from the past, to find out why we have the S-92 today.

8:33 p.m., September 18, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home