- Reaction score
- 6,240
- Points
- 1,040
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.
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.