Smallc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) Ummm, your edited reply still doesn't address the fact that they are building new ones. That's why reading is important. Edited June 10, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) VikingI can see how the C-27 beats out the C-295 but i'm lost at how it beats out the redesigned Buf Comparison If the product was good enough, and we bought it, then others might do the same. It would be good for Canada. It seems better in almost every way. There are only a couple of categories where it falls short...and in many cases it surpasses the C-27j. BTW, this is one of the things that I think the military really needs, so that's why I'm all for it. Edited June 10, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 I will repeat that we should be viewing military procurement from a "what can we build here perspective". We are talking about a whole pile of cash that would best serve the national interest to be invested in our own nation instead of financing some other nations military industrial program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borg Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) I know i don't always see eye to eye with SmallC but he may be on to something here, and after doing alittle research on the topic i don't see how, the C-27J beat out a C-115 redesigned aircraft. Perhaps there are other missions that the Buf's accomplish or new missions which will suit the C-27J better....but as a sar aircraft maybe we should be looking at a home grown version. Viking I can see how the C-27 beats out the C-295 but i'm lost at how it beats out the redesigned Buf Comparison Tooling would take years - Viking may be a good company - but they cannot build an airplane from scratch - the refurbishment would still be a problem - notsure they actually have the abiliaty to do this within the next 5-7 years. Not against a home grown version - just that I personally believe it is not feasible at this time. Time is the enemy here Borg Edited June 10, 2009 by Borg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 At the end, the idea is that we will have about 25 tactical transports (17 super and about 9 regular Hercules), a number of SAR craft in the mid teens, and about a dozen coastal patrol aircraft that can be completely dedicated to that job. The internet is a bizarre phenomena when it comes to war - If this was - 50 years ago - we would all have someone knocking at your door to shut you down....Does no one get it that some bearded Taliban type sits with a lap top and read what ever he can ------ this is the information age and even the primatives are savy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Dobbin you write like the military is the bad guy - I tried to be up front and logical on this - your comment about the military having an agenda is written in a manner that makes one think they are on the take. Didn't suggest they were the bad guy but often they often think the bidding process is an inconvenience and would like to go straight for the goods they want. The bad guys are often the contractors who then think they have the military over a barrel. I have rarely seen a military contract stay at the price it was promised and often delivery is a lot longer than promised as well. The agenda is simply this - They want the best equipment for the job period - there is no gaming - I know - I have written SORs - which ones are not for public disclosure. If the specs are written to favour one company completely, there is no competition. If the stoppage comes it is because the opposition will play games - the justifications need to be water tight - not always easy to do as there are multiple ways to play politics. It goes into the house of idiots and the media reports on what happens during question period. The military is not allowed to go public to explain their reasoning for the SOR. That is why I gave you a couple of examples. I don't see any Opposition stoppage here. It is the government themselves that has put a stop and check on the process. It is the same for the helicopters. Where are the Opposition stopping this from going through? I do not claim the military is flawless and do not waste money - however much of that waste is to keep the politicians and media happy and to keep Treasury happy - miss their date by one minute and you are out for possibly months - if they decide they are too busy to see you - once again you are out for months. I have never missed Treasury - but they have often delayed me. I have no doubt that the military tries its best. However, there is a budget. Uncompetitive bidding simply leaves too much room for abuse. Politics makes it a lousy job in NDHQ - which is why everyone runs from there at the first chance - I hated it - I know no one who loves it - because politicians treat them like shit - ever been treated like shit every day of your life? It is far better under the cons - but still not fun - I will quit before I go back. No matter who is in power - they are concerned about the opposition and the questions and the media and the agendas - Cons are bad - fucking libs are the worst - NDP we simply ignored If the military believes that the democratic process is their enemy then we are really in trouble. No gaming - want the best - the competition that cannot meet the initial requirements spends a lot of lobby money toget the requirements reduced, eased, slacked or whatever you want. The competition unable to meet the rrequirements will almost always spin a great story - they will spend millions to turn the story around. It often seems those that are awarded the contracts can't meet the requirements either. Bottom line - they cannot meet the requirements.It is a lot of money and those who cannot meet the requirement will be doing their damndest to complicate the process. Read what I wrote and think on the examples - then ask yourself if you want those requirements reduced - especially if you are the person counting on that airplane coming to get you. Or you are the person working in that airplane. I have read what you wrote. If only one plane is possible, why even bother with the bidding process? I think the answer is that puts all the power in the hands of the contractor. If what I read from your response is written to be the way I took it - then you are similar to the folks that cause the problem.Meet the requirements. If you cannot - then you can go cry to the media and politicians - and CBC is the worst for misrepresentation of the story - cannot wait until they go tits up. Well, the misrepresentation seems to be that the media and the Opposition is responsible for this delay. Where? This is the government acting. So - in closing - want to be a bidder? Meet the requirements. If the bid reads like the complete specs of a plane the military wants, there is no bidding process. They are simply saying they want the plane they want and insert whatever clause to ensure no other plane will do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 So tooling might take a while, but how long are we going to have to wait for the C-27j? We don't know that yet. I think the government should help the company get up and running and buy their aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Thanks for your thoughtful and knowledgeable reply. It's always nice to learn a few things from someone who's been there. CBC with an agenda? Who would have thought. Why is this CBC with agenda? It isn't like they are the only one carrying the report. They have reported what the government has done and what the specs were and what the concern is. The hostility the right has to all media certainly precludes thinking about what was said. If it is simply dismissed as a media report and having no value, I think it is the government that ultimately will get hurt. If a government starts to believe its own news releases completely, there is no surer way to get out of touch with things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 If you have not noticed the left is the right these days! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borg Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) If the product was good enough, and we bought it, then others might do the same. It would be good for Canada. Unfortunately the basic de Havilland Buffalo does not qualify for U.S. FAA flight certification. The aircraft has no single engine capability in the STOL configuration. What that means is if you are configured in the Short Take Off and Landing - full flaps, landing gear down, props in approach mode - there is no single engine capability. Approach can be as slow as 45 knots - and you ARE on your way down. If you lose an engine and you power up the other - you will torque roll the aircraft - yeah, right over on it's back - and then you are dead - so engine failure is straight ahead crash landing if the runway is short or you are close to the ground - that is the big reason it never sold in the first place. As you see - there is a great deal of information the news media does not: a. Know or b. Does not care to add. The likelihood of a large international market without the base FAA approval which most companies look for - is very small. All Canadian aircraft and pilots - "Fly at the pleasure of the Queen" This one factor is considered an acceptable risk I am out of this conversation completely - I have flown 10 different types of Canadian military aircraft - fighters, transports and helicopters and have more than 10K flight hours - you got questions? I might not know the answer - but I know where to go to get them. Bottom line here - the lack of knowledge on thsi board makes my typing fingers sore and it will eventually degenerate into a pissing contest about what is the best aircraft. The guys and gals crewing the "Beestalo" wrote the requirements - because they need the capability and they are the pro's - so meet the requirement or get out of the bidding process. Now where can I stir the pot next? Borg Edited June 10, 2009 by Borg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 And yet again we see your obsession with money and costs overrides concerns for health and safety. What is it about the Left which doesn't care about people dying so long as they can shave a nickel off the cost? What is your obsession for not ensuring money is not there for other aspects of the military and health. What is it about the right which doesn't care that there are a limited amount of dollars and that to save lives and ensure safety, it has to be wisely spent. Why don't you want money wisely spent? It should be spent that way in every department of government. No exceptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 If you have not noticed the left is the right these days! The left acts like right wing facists in old Germany --- very clever and pretend to be leftie soft hearts but our left is actually brutally rightist - and very very clever about hiding it ---------conservatives are more moderate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 You may have hit the key behind this CBC report. Great post, BTW. Ah, Another CBC hater. However, when it comes to Radio Canada, you don't want them cut off too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) In many ways, the C-27j is a reduction in capability. Even the C-295 was barely disqualified. We really need to sop with the sole source. BTW, the new Buffalo is different, so it may very well meet FAA certification. Edited June 10, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borg Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 In many ways, the C-27j is a reduction in capability. Even the C-295 was barely disqualified. We really need to sop with the sole source.BTW, the new Buffalo is different, so it may very well meet FAA certification. STOL configuration has not changed Borg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 What determines STOL configuration? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borg Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) Out of curiosity why was the Super Herc considered? http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/c130/c-130j-specs.html ://http://www.lockheedmartin.com/produ...30j-specs.html ://http://www.lockheedmartin.com/produ...30j-specs.html ://http://www.lockheedmartin.com/produ...30j-specs.html Canada has C-130J on order - great plane - not sure if that is the Super Herc - did not read your link Borg Edited June 10, 2009 by Borg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) Canada has C-130J on order - great plane - not sureif that is the Super Herc - dod not read your link Yes, the J is the super. It's all they sell now. We'll have those and the ones that were bought in the 90s. There is also an extended length version that we aren't getting. Edited June 10, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.