The CH-148 is based on Sikorsky’s H-92. (Canadian Govt.)
The Canadian Government and Sikorsky have agreed on a revised delivery arrangement and in-service support contract for the delayed CH-148 Cyclone helicopter project.
Ordered in November 2004 to replace the CH-124 Sea King in Royal Canadian Navy service, the first CH-148 was scheduled to have been delivered in 2008. But ongoing integration issues with the machine’s complex avionics and sensor suites and weight growth saw the contract amended in 2008 and again in 2010, without any helicopters being delivered.
This content is available exclusively to Australian Aviation members.
To unlock all Australian Aviation magazine content and again unlimited access to our daily news and features, become a member today. A monthly membership is only $5.99 or save with our annual plans.
Unlimited access to all Australian Aviation digital content
Access to the Australian Aviation app
Australian Aviation quarterly digital magazines
Access to In Focus reports via our app
Access to our Behind the Lens photo galleries and other exclusive content
Daily news updates via our email bulletin
This latest agreement is the fourth time the contract has been renegotiated, and will see just eight CH-148s delivered in an interim configuration in 2015 so the oldest Sea Kings can be retired. The cost of the acquisition contract, valued at C$1.9 billion is reportedly unchanged from the amount originally agreed upon, but no date has been published as to when the full capability is expected to be delivered.
The CH-148 is a development of the H-92 airframe, and will serve as an anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare and search and rescue aircraft aboard Royal Canadian Navy frigates and destroyers.
And i thought our bureaucrats in defense were the only ones in the western world that just didn’t buy the right product from start.You cant put 2 tonnes of armament and Hi Tech on a VW and expect a porche.
Martin
says:
Jeff,
An S-92 / H-92 is hardly a VW, more like a Mack truck. I will have to see where you got the 2 tonne additional weight figure from as it wasn’t from this article. If the case, 2 tonnes is a heck of a lot of additional weight for any helicopter, even one as large as a H-92 with an MTOW of around 13 tonnes.
But yes, the Canadian maritime helicopter acquisition saga seem even more sad than some of our acquisitions, and this latest news sounds somewhat like the difficulties that were faced with RAN Super Seasprite some years before it was terminated.
PS: Why do you point the finger at the bureaucrats? If both parties were working with the same contracted specification and schedule, then if Sikorsky isn’t delivering to this, how does this become the fault of the bureaucrats? If there was a better choice, then what was it and why (realising neither you or I are privy to the commercial information on which the Canadians made their decision for this type)?
PPS: If you read the history of this project at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-148_Cyclone, you will see that at least part of the problem with the drawn out acquisition appears to have been related to politics… nothing new there!
iscover
Australian Aviation quarterly print & digital magazines
Jeff Atkinson
says:And i thought our bureaucrats in defense were the only ones in the western world that just didn’t buy the right product from start.You cant put 2 tonnes of armament and Hi Tech on a VW and expect a porche.
Martin
says:Jeff,
An S-92 / H-92 is hardly a VW, more like a Mack truck. I will have to see where you got the 2 tonne additional weight figure from as it wasn’t from this article. If the case, 2 tonnes is a heck of a lot of additional weight for any helicopter, even one as large as a H-92 with an MTOW of around 13 tonnes.
But yes, the Canadian maritime helicopter acquisition saga seem even more sad than some of our acquisitions, and this latest news sounds somewhat like the difficulties that were faced with RAN Super Seasprite some years before it was terminated.
PS: Why do you point the finger at the bureaucrats? If both parties were working with the same contracted specification and schedule, then if Sikorsky isn’t delivering to this, how does this become the fault of the bureaucrats? If there was a better choice, then what was it and why (realising neither you or I are privy to the commercial information on which the Canadians made their decision for this type)?
PPS: If you read the history of this project at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-148_Cyclone, you will see that at least part of the problem with the drawn out acquisition appears to have been related to politics… nothing new there!