CH-148 Cyclone Progress

[Navy_Pete]

We see the 'do what you already know' all the time, but there seems to be a balance between changing what you do to adapt to the equipment, and then wanting to drop key roles that have been in place for a long time and continually demonstrate their worth. In a lot of cases though, I think we stick with weird Canadian only requirements for no good reason, while simultaneously getting rid of long standing things that actually make sense for no reason (cough hull techs cough), and both seem to be gut feel and emotion. AOPs, JSS and CSC are all probably great examples of both, while on the DRMIS side we let the SAP processes continually screw up how we do things (and now breaking NSNs, tech data and procurement with the MI update that decided to push OEM part number and NCAGE as the replacement for the NSN as the primary attribute for parts).

I think the Cyclone itself would have turned out to be a capable helicopter if someone the size of the USN, France or the RN was the main customer. I'm sure there are some examples, but I can't think of any major platform developed in Canada that has ever resulted in exports. Really glad we went with the P8, hope we cut bait and do something similar with the MH soon. The fact that they are already short on parts while still delivering it and cannabalizing the delivered fleet already is an absolutely brutal indicator on the feasibility of the supply chain.

 

[MJP]

I think we stick with weird Canadian only requirements for no good reason, while simultaneously getting rid of long standing things that actually make sense for no reason (cough hull AOPs, JSS and CSC are all probably great examples of both, while on the DRMIS side we let the SAP processes continually screw up how we do things (and now breaking NSNs, tech data and procurement with the MI update that decided to push OEM part number and NCAGE as the replacement for the NSN as the primary attribute for parts).

#thread hijack

Sticking with NSNs as the primary attribute is the weird Canadian only thing you derided earlier in the post. By trying to stick to old processes, naming conventions by customizing DRMIS to match previous systems we created an unsustainable monstrosity. MI isn't perfect by any means but it is actual rigor in data and material creation where none existed before except by the grace and quality of the EMT managing the material.

 

[Navy_Pete]

#thread hijack

Sticking with NSNs as the primary attribute is the weird Canadian only thing you derided earlier in the post. By trying to stick to old processes, naming conventions by customizing DRMIS to match previous systems we created an unsustainable monstrosity. MI isn't perfect by any means but it is actual rigor in data and material creation where none existed before except by the grace and quality of the EMT managing the material.

Sure, except the change broke our procurement, deleted several decades of part number history, and is causing all kinds of havoc. The change isn't as much of the problem as the roll out and the decisions that were made. They could have done the same rigor without essentially fucking everything up. Currently have multiple life safety related widget buys stalled at blog because of this, and these are procurements that have been in the works for over a year that finally delivered, and that's just in a few weeks since the rollout; we have dozens more pending this month.

It's also not a weird Canadian only thing, I've seen US and UK tech pubs that also use NSNs as the primary identifier for part numbers, and other EU countries also use them. Maybe more common on the Navy side, but there are a lot of things with dozens of different part numbers from different suppliers, but no one cares who makes it as they are interchangeable. That's how you can send out a message to other people in a NATO fleet asking for an NSN and get positive responses on things like switches, gauges, hoses etc.

One of the big problems on the NSN side wasn't the NSNs; it's DSCO. They randomly drop data, use wrong naming conventions, and generally completely ignore what the TA submitted. MI did the same, and has done fun things like tagged all kinds of random parts as needing to be serialized. We specifically don't use that unless it's critical because that is an absolute nightmare that exponentially increases the LOE, and generally results in garbage data very quickly anyway with things like the same 1 tonne pump in two spots (but not were it actually is).

Guess what all of our publications use? NSNs. Guess what all our drawings use? NSNs. Guess what linkages don't get made when we catalogue things under MI now? Yep, NSNs. And as painful as dealing with DSCO was, the MI process is somehow worse, and I don't know of anyone who has had luck getting an MI request process completed in the month or so it's live.

So we can't accept parts we've bought because the previously catalogued part number was deleted off the NSN by the MI rollout. If a substitution comes in that is accepted, we can't add it quickly now because the MMR creation process is overwhelmed. We also can't make changes (like remove serialization) and accept said parts because of the same process. We also can't actually use the MMR to buy a part, because that's sole sourcing, so we're still using NSNs anyway.

It is an absolute shit show, and the people that made the decision seem to have no idea how the NSNs were being used by the people that actually fix things. I fully expect it to result in loss of operational capabilities in the near future, and at the moment it's being worked around by ignoring the MMR and putting in parts that meet the NSN tech specs under that OEM part number and NCAGE because they are needed for repairs.

 

[Baz]

I think the discussion of NSNs truly is a thread hijack wrt Cyclone, because spares are entirely a Sikorsky, GDMS-C, and L-3 MAS contractor team issue. Which also means that lack thereof may not be an indicator that the parts are no longer available, but that said contractor team may not find it economically feasible to stock them.

The Cyclone project is a different beast, and the attempt to push all the costs and risks to the contractor may not have been successful. Conversely, the contractor teams attempt to consider it as business as usual (ie bid what the government wants to hear and then "renegotiate" to the true cost) may also not have been successful.

I'm surprised that the current situation wasn't predicted given that:

• Chretien said "not the Cadillac" and cancelled the EH-101
• DND was directed to define something other than the Cadillac
• the SOR and MHRS ended up being relatively the same Cadillac
• the contractor took it on anyway, and then struggled to deliver
• on IOC, but far from FOC, the Generals and Admirals publicly bragged about the "best MH in the world." But I thought we weren't supposed to have the Cadillac?

So, the on paper Cadillac was ordered at the mini-van price... didn't something have to give somewhere?

 

[MJP]

Sure, except the change broke our procurement, deleted several decades of part number history, and is causing all kinds of havoc. The change isn't as much of the problem as the roll out and the decisions that were made. They could have done the same rigor without essentially fucking everything up. Currently have multiple life safety related widget buys stalled at blog because of this, and these are procurements that have been in the works for over a year that finally delivered, and that's just in a few weeks since the rollout; we have dozens more pending this month.

It's also not a weird Canadian only thing, I've seen US and UK tech pubs that also use NSNs as the primary identifier for part numbers, and other EU countries also use them. Maybe more common on the Navy side, but there are a lot of things with dozens of different part numbers from different suppliers, but no one cares who makes it as they are interchangeable. That's how you can send out a message to other people in a NATO fleet asking for an NSN and get positive responses on things like switches, gauges, hoses etc.

One of the big problems on the NSN side wasn't the NSNs; it's DSCO. They randomly drop data, use wrong naming conventions, and generally completely ignore what the TA submitted. MI did the same, and has done fun things like tagged all kinds of random parts as needing to be serialized. We specifically don't use that unless it's critical because that is an absolute nightmare that exponentially increases the LOE, and generally results in garbage data very quickly anyway with things like the same 1 tonne pump in two spots (but not were it actually is).

Guess what all of our publications use? NSNs. Guess what all our drawings use? NSNs. Guess what linkages don't get made when we catalogue things under MI now? Yep, NSNs. And as painful as dealing with DSCO was, the MI process is somehow worse, and I don't know of anyone who has had luck getting an MI request process completed in the month or so it's live.

So we can't accept parts we've bought because the previously catalogued part number was deleted off the NSN by the MI rollout. If a substitution comes in that is accepted, we can't add it quickly now because the MMR creation process is overwhelmed. We also can't make changes (like remove serialization) and accept said parts because of the same process. We also can't actually use the MMR to buy a part, because that's sole sourcing, so we're still using NSNs anyway.

It is an absolute shit show, and the people that made the decision seem to have no idea how the NSNs were being used by the people that actually fix things. I fully expect it to result in loss of operational capabilities in the near future, and at the moment it's being worked around by ignoring the MMR and putting in parts that meet the NSN tech specs under that OEM part number and NCAGE because they are needed for repairs.

The NSN material that is arriving today is the same material that was ordered before MI roll-over just with an MPN:NCAGE vs an NSN. It is still identified by the same NSN (NIIN now). There are no issues in receipting the material except over exaggeration of the issue by various entities. It is the same material!!! This is something I am personally involved in investigating and in almost every case it is the same material! If one was that passionate about the issue they should have given each part number its own NSN before in the years before instead of relying on a separate system to confirm that a certain part is GTG. MI gives EMTs the ability to do fit-form-class (FFC) in a way that the previous legacy system never did. MI is exposing our bad material management practices and isn’t wholly the bad guy here (they are not great tho)

Now I will say and have said before that MI did a weird thing with FFC material (many MPN into one MPN:NCAGE) from the outset, and have previously said I don’t understand why it did what it did. That said at the end of the day the material is still all linked properly in the system of record and can be ordered via NSN or MPN:NCAGE regardless of what is inputted. It is the same material!

 

[MJP]

I think the discussion of NSNs truly is a thread hijack wrt Cyclone, because spares are entirely a Sikorsky, GDMS-C, and L-3 MAS contractor team issue. Which also means that lack thereof may not be an indicator that the parts are no longer available, but that said contractor team may not find it economically feasible to stock them.

The Cyclone project is a different beast, and the attempt to push all the costs and risks to the contractor may not have been successful. Conversely, the contractor teams attempt to consider it as business as usual (ie bid what the government wants to hear and then "renegotiate" to the true cost) may also not have been successful.

I'm surprised that the current situation wasn't predicted given that:

• Chretien said "not the Cadillac" and cancelled the EH-101
• DND was directed to define something other than the Cadillac
• the SOR and MHRS ended up being relatively the same Cadillac
• the contractor took it on anyway, and then struggled to deliver
• on IOC, but far from FOC, the Generals and Admirals publicly bragged about the "best MH in the world." But I thought we weren't supposed to have the Cadillac?

So, the on paper Cadillac was ordered at the mini-van price... didn't something have to give somewhere?

It totally is and Mods feel free to pull it from the conversation. RCAF generally gets their parts from in-service support models vice from the DSC

 

[SeaKingTacco]

You guys are so cute when you talk supply….

 

[Navy_Pete]

If one was that passionate about the issue they should have given each part number its own NSN before in the years before instead of relying on a separate system to confirm that a certain part is GTG. MI gives EMTs the ability to do fit-form-class (FFC) in a way that the previous legacy system never did. MI is exposing our bad material management practices and isn’t wholly the bad guy here (they are not great tho)

Again, I don't think you fully grasp how interconnected NSNs are with technical data and the standards.

An NSN will include the full technical specifications for a widget. The manual, drawings, and users will know they need to use that NSN in that spot.
10 companies may make a part that all comply with that NSN. For the end user, all they need to do is order that NSN and a widget that works shows up. Creating a new NSN for an identical part also means I have to update the manuals, drawings and other references, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars in money and time (and take literal years). It is an absolute waste of time and money that we don't have to spare. And usually the tech data rules don't let you list more then one NSN for widget anyway.

For the user, if they need a 50 W lightbulb, and they can order it under an NSN, they really don't care what the MPN or NCage is. If there are 10 suppliers that can provide that bulb, LCMMs, procurement officers and PSPC will award it to whoever is the lowest technically compliant bidder. For the drawing and manual, it will say 'use a 50 W light bulb here, NSN xxx'. When we need more, we put out a bid for the NSN, bidders submit quotes for 50 W light bulbs, it goes to whoever is lowest technically compliant, MPN:NCage gets appended, life goes on. For things that are available from a lot of suppliers that we go through a lot, it's common to have a pool of a dozen that will routinely bid on it and rotate around who supplies the material. I have hundreds of NSNs like this.

If company A is the primary supplier for a while, then company B supplies it, it doesn't matter to the end user, no drawings change, the manual doesn't need changed, etc. Now we're supposed to care, even though it's the same material. I've had 3 parts rejected at blog just this week for an MPN:NCage mismatch, even though the parts delivered is technically compliant. A lot of OEMs have numerous active NCAGEs, so now the identical part will be different in the system if it comes from the US plant instead of the canadian distributor because of the Ncage, and would require a complete recataloging as a distinct item because I can't just add it to the NSN now.

The other fun bit is when companies merge/rename or otherwise do normal corporation things, and the NCage changes. Now all of a sudden we have to re-catalogue the same part (in a process that is 1 month behind after 5 weeks live, with 3 of those weeks being a bulk leave period).

Our material managment practices got sloppy at times, with a lot of things getting dropped, but instead of addressing the root cause for a lot of it (DSCO), we've added another layer of bullshit. Some things they've already rolled back, but some of the changes in DRMIS may be irreversible, so now we're trying to figure out what MI did behind the scenes, what was previously done in CGCS behind the scenes.

A lot of those previous part numbers were breadcrumbs for figuring out what a predecessor did in the job 20 years ago, so there has also been a huge amount of useful data that we relied upon for knowledge management expunged.

This isn't quite as big a debacle as Phoenix, but it is absolutely creating huge churn in areas where we are already massively underresourced. Things may have been a bit inefficient, but ineffienct and functional is better then broken.

 

[MJP]

Again, I don't think you fully grasp how interconnected NSNs are with technical data and the standards.

An NSN will include the full technical specifications for a widget. The manual, drawings, and users will know they need to use that NSN in that spot.
10 companies may make a part that all comply with that NSN. For the end user, all they need to do is order that NSN and a widget that works shows up. Creating a new NSN for an identical part also means I have to update the manuals, drawings and other references, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars in money and time (and take literal years). It is an absolute waste of time and money that we don't have to spare. And usually the tech data rules don't let you list more then one NSN for widget anyway.

For the user, if they need a 50 W lightbulb, and they can order it under an NSN, they really don't care what the MPN or NCage is. If there are 10 suppliers that can provide that bulb, LCMMs, procurement officers and PSPC will award it to whoever is the lowest technically compliant bidder. For the drawing and manual, it will say 'use a 50 W light bulb here, NSN xxx'. When we need more, we put out a bid for the NSN, bidders submit quotes for 50 W light bulbs, it goes to whoever is lowest technically compliant, MPN:NCage gets appended, life goes on. For things that are available from a lot of suppliers that we go through a lot, it's common to have a pool of a dozen that will routinely bid on it and rotate around who supplies the material. I have hundreds of NSNs like this.

If company A is the primary supplier for a while, then company B supplies it, it doesn't matter to the end user, no drawings change, the manual doesn't need changed, etc. Now we're supposed to care, even though it's the same material. I've had 3 parts rejected at blog just this week for an MPN:NCage mismatch, even though the parts delivered is technically compliant. A lot of OEMs have numerous active NCAGEs, so now the identical part will be different in the system if it comes from the US plant instead of the canadian distributor because of the Ncage, and would require a complete recataloging as a distinct item because I can't just add it to the NSN now.

The other fun bit is when companies merge/rename or otherwise do normal corporation things, and the NCage changes. Now all of a sudden we have to re-catalogue the same part (in a process that is 1 month behind after 5 weeks live, with 3 of those weeks being a bulk leave period).

Our material managment practices got sloppy at times, with a lot of things getting dropped, but instead of addressing the root cause for a lot of it (DSCO), we've added another layer of bullshit. Some things they've already rolled back, but some of the changes in DRMIS may be irreversible, so now we're trying to figure out what MI did behind the scenes, what was previously done in CGCS behind the scenes.

A lot of those previous part numbers were breadcrumbs for figuring out what a predecessor did in the job 20 years ago, so there has also been a huge amount of useful data that we relied upon for knowledge management expunged.

This isn't quite as big a debacle as Phoenix, but it is absolutely creating huge churn in areas where we are already massively underresourced. Things may have been a bit inefficient, but ineffienct and functional is better then broken.

I don't think you understand that the MPN:CAGE from 06 Dec post MI rollout is the exact same record in the system from 15 Nov pre-MI rollout nor do I think the entities understand that either...they just rather bleat the sky is falling (believe me I sit in meetings where everything is the end of the world for them so this is nothing new). At the end of the day the material is the same before roll-out as after roll-out in the system .

There is some validity to your post regarding adding additional material if not the main MPN...which I have alluded to before has been an issue for MI but it certainly isn't the end of the world as some decry. It is after all the same material in the system and shows up as valid in CGCS

 

[NavyShooter]

I'll observe (and relate this to aircraft stuff in a minute) that at BLog East, we have concerns, but we're working with the system. The problems we're running into is that the MPN:NCAGE combo is sometimes NOT matching.
Example, we receive an order referencing a RNCC/RNVC 3-2 which has a MPN of 1122334455 from NCAGE 12345.

The item which arrives has the MPN 1122334455, but there's a label on the item indicating that it's actually from NCAGE U1234.

So, we have a failure to match the MPN:NCAGE, which is a problem.

The further detail is that with the MI rollout, it appears that ONLY the RNCC/RNVC 3-2 code has been linked.

So, suppose I have an item that has multiple RNCC/RNVC entries (some being Drawing References, others being suitable/acceptable alternate suppliers) those don't show up in DRMIS when you search for the item.

I can still find the item using the NIIN by inputting 21-1235678:NSN (note the need to add :NSN) so we're working around it.

One of the problems that was highlighted in the Data Steward Teleconference I tied into the other day is that the MI project is designed to allow 'apparently inactive' NSNs to be removed from the system.
-items with no stock
-items that also have not been updated in 5+ years
-no national inventory recorded

Good idea - these items should all be 'obsolete' and no-longer in service, and zero stock on the shelf.

BUT.

During that Teleconference, it turns out that apparently the Air Force has a bunch of NSN's that match the criteria for elimination, however, there actually IS stock - but it's stock held by the Contractors under ISSC, so Government Owned, Contractor Held with no visibility in DRMIS.

This was mentioned for 3 different airframes as being a problem...so...while the concept of cleaning up some of the old 'junk' NSN's in the system is a great idea, there are now problems being identified that seem not to have a good work-around. Unless the Contractor starts reporting their inventory in DRMIS - which is probably not a part of the ISSC. Meaning that to get them to report would require a revision of the contract.

Anyhow, I observe that during the meeting, there was an individual who has been looking for problems, and not looking for solutions. I'm working with what I've got, trying to find solutions. There are some unintended consequences to all of this, and they're starting to crop up.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Good thing we don’t use NSNs (or the Supply System) for Cyclone parts…to somewhat bring this back on topic…

 

[Baz]

So, the on paper Cadillac was ordered at the mini-van price... didn't something have to give somewhere?

Good thing we don’t use NSNs (or the Supply System) for Cyclone parts…to somewhat bring this back on topic…

… and I’ll ask the question again… didn’t something have to give in the Cuclone project at some point?

 

[Halifax Tar]

The whole NSN change is a mess and has totally confused the techs on my ship, it's also slowed us down considerably.

My Storesman are working around things and relying on networking to get through this.

We have very very little to do with the Cyclone. Other than it adds a lot of suprise work and conflict when their stuff shows up out of the blue.

 

[Maxman1]

Why not replace it with the EH101/Merlin HM1, since that's in service with several NATO countries and is also our SAR bird, the Cormorant, so it's already supported by our logistics system.

 

[Maxman1]

So, the on paper Cadillac was ordered at the mini-van price... didn't something have to give somewhere?

 

[Good2Golf]

Why not replace it with the EH101/Merlin HM1, since that's in service with several NATO countries and is also our SAR bird, the Cormorant, so it's already supported by our logistics system.

Pretty sure that well was poisoned sufficiently by Le P’tit Gars de Shawinigan as to never, ever, ever be a thing. Zip, zero, nada chance.

 

[Maxman1]

Pretty sure that well was poisoned sufficiently by Le P’tit Gars de Shawinigan as to never, ever, ever be a thing. Zip, zero, nada chance.

He's been gone for twenty years now, and Paul Martin almost as long. The Harper government was actually considering buying EH101s and canceling the Cyclone buy in 2013. I think that's a dead issue today, and most people would agree with buying them when explained the facts and history of the matter.

And note that he did such a good job of preventing us from buying them that we bought them anyways to replace the Labradours.

 

[DBNSG]

Pretty sure that well was poisoned sufficiently by Le P’tit Gars de Shawinigan as to never, ever, ever be a thing. Zip, zero, nada chance.

Well the man did turn 90 the other day and Mother Nature will be by soon.

 

[Good2Golf]

Well the man did turn 90 the other day and Mother Nature will be by soon.

Doesn’t matter. Backroom Laurentians won’t let it happen.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As I said before. To be somewhat fair, who would have thought that Sikorsky could have effed up the Marine Helicopter concept so badly, since they actually invented the frigging role.........

Of course we could have bought the NH-90, where at least we could have company in our misery.