Army Guy Posted December 9, 2016 Report Posted December 9, 2016 Liberals have announced that it will go with EADS-CASA C295M to replace the long serving Buffalo Aircraft serving the west coast and the older C130H aircraft serving the east coast.....Good on the liberals for closing a file that has been open for more than 14 years, the same file that both the liberals and cons have kicked around for far to long.....and yet another example of how Canada can not purchase anything in short order....even when lives were on the line..... But why the C295M, is it truly the best aircraft for the job.... perhaps not, I've been told that it is the cheapest....but then again is the cheapest what we really want.....The C295M is the slowest of all the aircraft tested, it offers a smaller narrower cargo space....it's floor is not reinforced to haul heavy loads or vehicles, but it is cheaper to maintain.....The contract also covers all maintance on the aircraft for 25 years....with an option of 15 more years if needed.... The C-27J is faster, it is much wider, it's floors are reinforced to handle vehicles, or heavy cargo, it is also compatible with the C-130J, which include engines, and a vast array of other parts...so there is a savings when it comes down to parts and logistical costs.....It was the militaries favorite going into the competition because it could be used in other areas of the forces as well, such as an Airborne platform, hauling cargo into the north with skies , because it had a shorter take off and landing than the C295M.....Yes it is true the company that makes the C-27J said they would not support EX US C-27J if we purchased them....in the interests of protecting their company and products.....which may of caused some discourse among some Canadians....but then again some times we need to just get over ourselves and purchase the best machine for the job or jobs..... Another tid bit Lockmart aslo decided to offer Canada a specialized verision of the C-130J SAR, with a shorter airframe....but decided to drop that offer when Canada, or should I say the liberal party decided it would rule out the F-35 from it's fighter jet ...competition...imagine that.... It has been mentioned that sometimes the government needs to save the military from itself....at first I was not sure what the poster meant by that, as I was asking the question why is it that the government always picks the exact opposite of what the military expresses would be the best option.....Like some how, some where in the liberal cabinet there is a subject matter expert on military matters, that knows more about what our country needs than the men and women serving this great nation.....and this is the only dept that we do this with.....do this same people get involved with choosing the next RCMP squad car, or Helos....do they pick out Coast Guard ships.....That is not the role of the government, their role is to mange the file, and funding.... So while DND might need to be saved from itself , lets look at some of the choices our government has made for our Military.....lets start with the LSVW, built by western star in BC, now defunct, this vehicle had failed all of it's testing done in Canada, and was taken to the desert in the US in order to pass the basic tests...because we have so much desert here in Canada..... G-wagon, to replace the litis jeep in Afghanistan.....weeks after it's delivery an IED totally destroys a G wagon killing 2 soldiers wounding another plus taking the life of a diplomat, later it is found to be to top heavy, and prone to rolling over, which takes more lives of soldiers due to role overs.... Sea king replacement.....nice job on this one.....Britain continues to fly it's fleet of EH-101 for more than a dacade now....and we have completed delivery of how many operational aircraft ..... LAV III replacement project...intended to replace our worn out lavs out of Afghanistan plus replace the missing vehs requires at units.that were never ordered.....later the project is deemed to expensive then turns into an over haul of a large part of the lav fleet not the entire fleet....then with some saving s they purchase the TPAV intended to replace Coyote recce vehs.... The list goes on forever....the point is Our government has a long history of buying crap for our military, when they lack the experience or know how to do so......kind of like sending your wife out to buy your power tools.....yes sometimes she surprises you with wonderful things like C-130J and C-17....go thing there was no other example on the market.....but most of the time she brings home cheap shit....that does not do the job very well.....only these tools and machinery they are buying lives depend on that.....but lives don't matter....and think of this for a moment if our soldiers lives do not matter just what do you think yours is worth..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
The_Squid Posted December 9, 2016 Report Posted December 9, 2016 29 minutes ago, Army Guy said: The C-27J is faster by 11 knots The C295M has a faster cruising speed. 31 minutes ago, Army Guy said: heavy cargo It's a SAR plane. We don't need it to carry large payloads. The cargo difference is ~2,000kg (9k vs 11k). Your criticisms are simply made up and not about important items. Quote
Smallc Posted December 9, 2016 Report Posted December 9, 2016 (edited) C-295W, not M. The C-27j lost because of price, arrogance on the part of Leonardo, and dishonesty by military brass. Edited December 9, 2016 by Smallc Quote
Army Guy Posted December 9, 2016 Author Report Posted December 9, 2016 4 hours ago, The_Squid said: by 11 knots The C295M has a faster cruising speed. It's a SAR plane. We don't need it to carry large payloads. The cargo difference is ~2,000kg (9k vs 11k). Your criticisms are simply made up and not about important items. Not sure what sources your using , I used airbus, and C-27J sites.....here is what I found.... Max speed for C-27J was 602 Km/H while the max speed for C295W was 576 kM/H , but wait a min......the cruising speeds get even better....for the C-27J cruises at 583 KM/H while the C295W cruises at just 480 KM/H .....cruising speeds are what the aircraft normally fly at.....and the difference is almost 100 KM/H.....not 11 as you suggested..... Payloads for the C-27J are 25,353 lbs vice C295W which is only 20,400 a difference of 5000 lbs.....why do we mention payloads...well there is more than just throwing a couple of SAR techs out the back.....the aircraft is used for all SAR duties hauling supplies/ materials etc... to and from a remote air crash, or what ever , along with picking up mass causalities from the site...5000 lbs could mean more people to evac.....so it does make a difference....it also means 5000 lbs more equipment hauled to the site.....such as skidoo's, medical tents, and equipment, more SAR techs.....the main difference is the C295W the floors in the the C295W are not reinforced to handle heavy cargo or vehs.....Kind of important..... Not only can it carry more it can carry it farther.....range is something you have to look at..... Not to mention SAR aircraft can be tasked with other missions, just as the others( Buffalo and hercs) where, artic re-supply of remote airstrips, med evac to remote artic areas, assisting other military pers in other artic operations.....such as OP Hurricane , replacing the back up batteries for the phone lines.....So there is more to their mission than you may think..... my other criticisms included the C-27J shares a lot of common parts with the C-130J.....hence a much cheaper, and manageable logistics tail....which would make up for the initial price tag difference over the bil years we keep them....Over all they make up some large differences.....important differences.... Why do you think the Airforce wanted the C-27J in the first place.....But what the F*** do they know, other than they fly those missions everyday, how many does the federal government fly again.....let me tell you ZERO.....they don't fly, the don't perform SAR missions, they know squat when it comes to SAR....and the info they think they know has been given to them by the military......shit I read a book about space flight once doesn't make me an astronaut does it..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
The_Squid Posted December 9, 2016 Report Posted December 9, 2016 You don't haul 25,000kg of supplies for SAR... stop being silly. If the Liberals picked the other plane, you would be complaining about how they should have picked the Airbus. Quote
Army Guy Posted December 9, 2016 Author Report Posted December 9, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Smallc said: C-295W, not M. The C-27j lost because of price, arrogance on the part of Leonardo, and dishonesty by military brass. Your right SmallC it is the C295W my bad....as I have already suggested the price difference would be migrated by a common parts shared with the C-130J fleet, such as engines, and many other parts...by reducing the logistic footprint, and initial purchase of spares already in the military system.... They might have been arrogant....when telling us, they would not support ex US aircraft. but we were going to buy airplanes off of them, not take them to bed.....if they have a product we wanted , one that would service our needs....why not..... I don't hear you talking about why lockmart pulled out their offer, when our prime minister told the world we would not be buying the F-35.....Lockheed offered to provide a specialized SAR version of the C-130J....if I was in Lockmart shoes I would think that was a little arrogant , but we still do business with them on a daily basis....go figure... That is the go to statement for all liberals.....it was DND fault because they were dishonest.....how a source....to back up that claim.....maybe , just maybe they wanted equipment that would go the distance....and do the job when you get there. Edited December 10, 2016 by Army Guy Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted December 10, 2016 Author Report Posted December 10, 2016 1 minute ago, The_Squid said: You don't haul 25,000kg of supplies for SAR... stop being silly. If the Liberals picked the other plane, you would be complaining about how they should have picked the Airbus. why don't you do some research on SAR exericises in the past....they regularly exercises responding to a large aircraft crash in a remote region.......how many people on a 747 anyway....you think you might get away with treating all those people with a pup tent and a few band aids....not to mention heaters, generators, canvas, skidoos, equipment to prepare runways for larger aircraft.....better yet research what our SAR techs do....and what equipment they have to do it....then tell me how do they get all that shit from airforce bases to remote regions..... It's not about the liberals .....hey kudos for closing the file.....but why go through all this effort if your not going to get it right the first time.....it's about getting the right equipment for the job....I know it is a alien concept to you.....but try it sometime..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted December 10, 2016 Author Report Posted December 10, 2016 Has anyone heard of the new maintence contract as part of the purchase..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
The_Squid Posted December 10, 2016 Report Posted December 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, Army Guy said: why don't you do some research on SAR exericises in the past....they regularly exercises responding to a large aircraft crash in a remote region.......how many people on a 747 anyway....you think you might get away with treating all those people with a pup tent and a few band aids....not to mention heaters, generators, canvas, skidoos, equipment to prepare runways for larger aircraft.....better yet research what our SAR techs do....and what equipment they have to do it....then tell me how do they get all that shit from airforce bases to remote regions..... It's not about the liberals .....hey kudos for closing the file.....but why go through all this effort if your not going to get it right the first time.....it's about getting the right equipment for the job....I know it is a alien concept to you.....but try it sometime..... Multiple planes can do a great job at SAR. This particular plane does a great job at it. But you can't admit that... instead you claim a 5000 pound difference in payload capacity means it isn't up for the job. That's hogwash. Quote
Smallc Posted December 10, 2016 Report Posted December 10, 2016 43 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Your right SmallC it is the C295W my bad....as I have already suggested the price difference would be migrated by a common parts shared with the C-130J fleet, such as engines, and many other parts...by reducing the logistic footprint, and initial purchase of spares already in the military system.... The people at procurement obviously disagreed with that. The costs were for support and the planes, not just the planes. It was less expensive to go with the C-295 44 minutes ago, Army Guy said: They might have been arrogant....when telling us, they would not support ex US aircraft. but we were going to buy airplanes off of them, not take them to bed.....if they have a product we wanted , one that would service our needs....why not..... Because they were arrogant. They thought we'd have to buy new planes from them if they refused to let us buy the used ones. They were wrong. Instead, they got nothing. 46 minutes ago, Army Guy said: I don't hear you talking about why lockmart pulled out their offer, when our prime minister told the world we would not be buying the F-35.....Lockheed offered to provide a specialized SAR version of the C-130J....if I was in Lockmart shoes I would think that was a little arrogant , but we still do business with them on a daily basis....go figure... And if that's true, it's arrogance on the part of LM. If it's true, they lost out on a potential multi billion sale. I don't believe it's actually true. The C-130j was simply too expensive. 47 minutes ago, Army Guy said: That is the go to statement for all liberals.....it was DND fault because they were dishonest.....how a source....to back up that claim.....maybe , just maybe they wanted equipment that would go the distance....and do the job when you get there. The complaints became so loud that former defence minister Peter MacKay asked the National Research Council to examine the requirements. It agreed the military's specifications were too specific and needed to be broadened and it should also look at things where search-and-rescue squadrons are based. A defence spokeswoman cited that as the reason the years of research and planning had to be discarded. http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2014/03/30/dnd-ditched-years-of-research-new-plane-plan.html The military favored the C-27j. There were other capable aircraft. We're going to buy one. Quote
Smallc Posted December 10, 2016 Report Posted December 10, 2016 43 minutes ago, Army Guy said: It's not about the liberals .....hey kudos for closing the file.....but why go through all this effort if your not going to get it right the first time.....it's about getting the right equipment for the job....I know it is a alien concept to you.....but try it sometime..... There's no evidence that the aircraft selected is incapable of doing the job. Quote
Army Guy Posted December 10, 2016 Author Report Posted December 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Smallc said: The people at procurement obviously disagreed with that. The costs were for support and the planes, not just the planes. It was less expensive to go with the C-295 Because they were arrogant. They thought we'd have to buy new planes from them if they refused to let us buy the used ones. They were wrong. Instead, they got nothing. And if that's true, it's arrogance on the part of LM. If it's true, they lost out on a potential multi billion sale. I don't believe it's actually true. The C-130j was simply too expensive. The complaints became so loud that former defence minister Peter MacKay asked the National Research Council to examine the requirements. It agreed the military's specifications were too specific and needed to be broadened and it should also look at things where search-and-rescue squadrons are based. A defence spokeswoman cited that as the reason the years of research and planning had to be discarded. http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2014/03/30/dnd-ditched-years-of-research-new-plane-plan.html The military favored the C-27j. There were other capable aircraft. We're going to buy one. Cheaper does not make it the best aircraft for the job....does it....and besides how would we know what each contract was worth, we have yet to see any 40 year prices and comparisons.....so how do we make a informed decision.....how do we know that the liberals just purchases this aircraft for it's own agenda....we dont' do we.....Have you ever asked your self "WHY" did the military want this specific aircraft.....was it the SAR guys that fell in love with it because it was all of that and more..... because you got your feelings hurt, big deal....business is business.....they had something we wanted....and because someones got punch in the hurt locker, will cross that product off the list...... As for the F-35 I guess we see it from different sides of the story.....I see it as a political mistake....a man trying to act like he knew all about the program.....and had made a decision even before he was briefed on it as PM.......and did not want to look bad.....now that is a good reason to turn down a product....because I said so that's why....it is the same....reason....LM did not want any of the hassles of trying to sell Canada anything after it got dumped for no reason at all from our 9 bil fighter project.....well not for no reason because it was a con project....and the PM did not like it..... There are thousands of aircraft that could be considered capable aircraft.....and we did buy one......just not the one the military wanted...you know the experts in the field....but what do they know .....and we wonder why we have so much problems with procurement in Canada....not just with the military but right across the board...... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted December 10, 2016 Author Report Posted December 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Smallc said: There's no evidence that the aircraft selected is incapable of doing the job. On the other hand there is no evidence that this aircraft is capable of do the job.....as we have not seen any of the tests results or 40 year forecasts.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Smallc Posted December 10, 2016 Report Posted December 10, 2016 34 minutes ago, Army Guy said: On the other hand there is no evidence that this aircraft is capable of do the job.... Sure there is. It's in operation around the world in countries with similar climate features. Quote
The_Squid Posted December 10, 2016 Report Posted December 10, 2016 Our current SAR aircraft, CC115 Buffalo, have a payload capacity of under 3000kg. The Airbus will have a payload capacity of over 9000kg. But Armyguy would have you think that this aircraft can't do an adequate job of SAR. Armyguy says "think of all the equipment you'll need to carry" . Hmmmm..... Clearly this aircraft is more than capable of SAR, and a huge upgrade over what we're currently running. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 10, 2016 Report Posted December 10, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, The_Squid said: It's a SAR plane. We don't need it to carry large payloads. The cargo difference is ~2,000kg (9k vs 11k). Yes we do, and weight isn't the only factor, but actual internal volume.......and of course range. 9 hours ago, Smallc said: The C-27j lost because of price, arrogance on the part of Leonardo, and dishonesty by military brass. Price I will grant you, but the C-27J lost because its engines aren't made in Liberal ridings in Montreal. 5 hours ago, Army Guy said: range is something you have to look at. Range, payload (both weight and volume) and the avionics and sensors 5 hours ago, Army Guy said: my other criticisms included the C-27J shares a lot of common parts with the C-130J The C-295 in fairness also shares a variant of the engines our Dash 8s use. 5 hours ago, Army Guy said: hence a much cheaper, and manageable logistics tail....which would make up for the initial price tag difference over the bil years we keep them But that would be mooted by the retirement of two aircraft types (Buffs and H Herks) for a single type....... 5 hours ago, The_Squid said: You don't haul 25,000kg of supplies for SAR... stop being silly. Sure they can and do, but as I said, internal volume for bulky items is a far bigger factor then actual weight........likewise range......something our current Herks, that it will replace, and the C-27J bested the C295 at. 5 hours ago, The_Squid said: This particular plane does a great job at it. Source? Of the current operators, first how many operate it in a SAR role and second, how many operate over such an expansive country, in varying climates as Canada? Those boxes have been checked by the C-27J. 2 hours ago, Smallc said: It's in operation around the world in countries with similar climate features. Such as? I do know the C-27j is operated by the US Coast Guard, in all environments, in the same roles...... Edited December 10, 2016 by Derek 2.0 Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 10, 2016 Report Posted December 10, 2016 26 minutes ago, The_Squid said: Our current SAR aircraft, CC115 Buffalo, have a payload capacity of under 3000kg. The Airbus will have a payload capacity of over 9000kg. But Armyguy would have you think that this aircraft can't do an adequate job of SAR. Armyguy says "think of all the equipment you'll need to carry" . Hmmmm..... Clearly this aircraft is more than capable of SAR, and a huge upgrade over what we're currently running. His point is sound.......the Buffalo is but one SAR aircraft in our inventory (the other being the the C-130H).........guess which one is tasked to the Arctic..... It will be an upgrade (on paper) over the Buffalos in many areas, but not the far larger Herc fleet, and is less capable then the C-27J in practice. Quote
Omni Posted December 10, 2016 Report Posted December 10, 2016 5 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said: His point is sound.......the Buffalo is but one SAR aircraft in our inventory (the other being the the C-130H).........guess which one is tasked to the Arctic..... It will be an upgrade (on paper) over the Buffalos in many areas, but not the far larger Herc fleet, and is less capable then the C-27J in practice. The Buffalo doesn't have the range for the arctic so that's why the Herc is there. Is there a point here? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 10, 2016 Report Posted December 10, 2016 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Omni said: The Buffalo doesn't have the range for the arctic so that's why the Herc is there. Is there a point here? Yes OGFT Omni, well the C295 will be an upgrade over the Buff, it will be a reduction in capability over what the Herc currently offers, likewise what the C-27J (or better yet, the C-130J) brought to the table. Edited December 10, 2016 by Derek 2.0 Quote
Omni Posted December 10, 2016 Report Posted December 10, 2016 Not sure what that's all about but yeah, I liked the herc too. Flown in a few of them. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 10, 2016 Report Posted December 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, Omni said: Not sure what that's all about but yeah, I liked the herc too. What "its about", as I said in the post above, the C295 is less capable then the Hercs it will replace, as such, will degrade our ability to conduct FWSAR over the majority of the country, including both the High Arctic and the Atlantic coast. Quote
Omni Posted December 10, 2016 Report Posted December 10, 2016 1 minute ago, Derek 2.0 said: What "its about", as I said in the post above, the C295 is less capable then the Hercs it will replace, as such, will degrade our ability to conduct FWSAR over the majority of the country, including both the High Arctic and the Atlantic coast. It can't carry the load of a herc, but who needs that on a SAR mission? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 10, 2016 Report Posted December 10, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Derek 2.0 said: Such as? I do know the C-27j is operated by the US Coast Guard, in all environments, in the same roles...... The C-27J is probably the quickest military transport to go from "great idea" to direct delivery to Davis-Monthan AFB and the forest service. A smaller pretend Herc is not a Herc. Edited December 10, 2016 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted December 10, 2016 Report Posted December 10, 2016 Just now, Omni said: It can't carry the load of a herc, but who needs that on a SAR mission? Both the SARTECs and the people being rescued.....be it rescue boats, (tracked) ATVs in the Arctic, rescue supplies, fuel bladders or even a helicopter. Quote
Omni Posted December 10, 2016 Report Posted December 10, 2016 Just now, Derek 2.0 said: Both the SARTECs and the people being rescued.....be it rescue boats, (tracked) ATVs in the Arctic, rescue supplies, fuel bladders or even a helicopter. It can do all that. It just can't carry what a herc can but then a herc on a sar mission doesnt need that. Re-supplying a war effort now that's different. Quote
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.