- Reaction score
While I want to agree with you, I suspect that "training and micro fleet" argument will come up. We jumped onto the Cyclone bandwagon and likley it will make sense to stay on it if we play more airframes, not sure how much of the moving bits are common to the other Sikorsky products? i wonder how much in common with the VH-92?
A slight off-topic tangent for the platform specifics, but germane to the discussion because other factors in play then, still exist today in current projects...
We didn’t jump onto any bandwagon at all. We asked a bespoke bandwagon to be made just for us!
The Martin government took a deliberate action to commit Canada to an aircraft that would be notably more capable than the SH-60 Sea Hawk type, but more importantly protected Jean Chrétien’s legacy of having taken a good decision back in 1993 to cut the NSA/NSH EH-101 helicopter...”Zip! Zero! Nada!” The CH-148 Cyclone was going to be a mess from the out start because the Government assigned to role of overall capability integrator to neither Sikorsky, nor to General Dynamics Mission Systems - Canada. That resulted in the Crown retaining final responsibility for overall platform-systems integration (cue Sikorsky and GDMS-C high-fiving each other with great relief in the background).
Arguably, Sikorsky was attempting to recover at least some of the NRE it spent on FBW flight-control systems it had developed with Boeing for the RAH-66 Comanche, but even then, once they hit the limit of liquidated damages back to the Crown, they pretty much lost interest in bending over backwards to make things work well enough to market the aircraft to compete with the upper echelons of its own (SH-60) customer base