Liberals purchase new SAR aircraft.

[Argus]

12 minutes ago, Smallc said:

The latest and greatest is exactly the problem - we need the least expensive equipment that is capable of doing the job. 

Why? Because we're some crummy broke, third world crap hole? We can't afford the best, even on a purchase that's going to be in service for forty years or more?

[Smallc]

26 minutes ago, Argus said:

Too expensive? Now I'm as opposed to taxes as the next guy, and probably more, but some things I don't believe on stinting, and that includes purchases like this. I don't care which is cheaper, I want the best aircraft. If the Herc is the best then we ought to buy it.

LM is obviously the one that thought they couldn't compete, as they didn't bid.

[Smallc]

17 minutes ago, Argus said:

Why? Because we're some crummy broke, third world crap hole? We can't afford the best, even on a purchase that's going to be in service for forty years or more?

We should buy what can do the job, because that's all that's needed.

[Argus]

11 minutes ago, Smallc said:

We should buy what can do the job, because that's all that's needed.

I don't know what kind of business you operate, but I would suggest the motto of "eh, probably good enough" would, while being an accurate reflection of your sentiment, likely not draw in a lot of customers.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

Well, in my business, I certainly don't buy the most expensive piece of equipment.  I buy the least expensive one that performs adequately.  

[Derek 2.0]

1 hour ago, Smallc said:

Then good thing we bought the aircraft that can land in the shorter amount of space (the C-295 has a shorter landing requirement than the C-27j).

No it doesn't......of the Buff, Herc and C-27J, its requirements are all longer

[Smallc]

It takes more space to take off - not to land.  The C-27 needs less space to take off.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Smallc

[kimmy]

56 minutes ago, Argus said:

I don't know what kind of business you operate, but I would suggest the motto of "eh, probably good enough" would, while being an accurate reflection of your sentiment, likely not draw in a lot of customers.

I don't think "drawing customers" is a consideration for military or search-and-rescue purchasing decisions.

In my business, we get paid by delivering results, and our customers don't care which equipment we use provided that the results are there.

The capabilities of the aircraft are important, but also important is being able to afford to purchase an adequate number of aircraft to provide the coverage needed, and being able to afford to keep them flying.   What I'm reading seems to indicate that the C27J aircraft has higher performance, but is a much more expensive aircraft, somewhere in the range of 50% more per unit.  Do the slightly greater capabilities of the C27J aircraft outweigh the potential of buying 50% more of the C295?  Given the amount of territory we have to cover, I would think the ability to purchase more aircraft would outweigh some modest performance advantages.

 -k

[Derek 2.0]

20 minutes ago, Smallc said:

It takes more space to take off - not to land.  The C-27 needs less space to take off.

The C-27J, like the Herc and Buff, is equally short for take off and landing.....versus the C295.

[Derek 2.0]

23 minutes ago, kimmy said:

Do the slightly greater capabilities of the C27J aircraft outweigh the potential of buying 50% more of the C295?  Given the amount of territory we have to cover, I would think the ability to purchase more aircraft would outweigh some modest performance advantages.

Yes, even though the purchase price of the C-27j is greater, operating more of the "cheaper" C295 is a false economy......more aircraft means more pilots, aircrew and technicians......larger parts inventory....more ramp spaces (at more airbases) to cover the weaker performance of the c295.........of course, the same can be applied to the C27j versus the C-130J, which we already operate in the transport squadrons, though the c-130J is more money to purchase and physically operate (by the hour) we would eliminate two aircraft types from the inventory, saving money and finding economies of scale with parts and training etc

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

.... though the c-130J is more money to purchase and physically operate (by the hour) we would eliminate two aircraft types from the inventory, saving money and finding economies of scale with parts and training etc

 

The Trudeau regime apparently likes more aircraft types and different supply chains....as in the F-18 Super Hornet.

[Derek 2.0]

15 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The Trudeau regime apparently likes more aircraft types and different supply chains....as in the F-18 Super Hornet.

 

The Trudeau Liberals like stuff built in their own ridings 

[Omni]

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

You seem to think that all SAR consists of is a plane a couple of SAR techs and they are good to go, and while that may be true if they are responding to a single engine aircraft loss , but the load rating s come into play when there is a multi engine aircraft loss in a remote engine.....with dozens or several hundred people on board....Now a few SAR techs are just not enough, lets complicate it even more and say it is in the winter.....Now dozens of SAR techs will need to respond, they will also need generators, tents, heaters, skidoo's , equipment to build a larger runway to bring in larger aircraft such as the Hercs. So you need a smaller aircraft capable of hauling larger loads into short temporary airfields  to get set up and to assist with evac of wounded passengers......This is where the Buff and twin otter came in......

The Buffalo has been used in many other taskings other than SAR, as well....just because it is painted bright yellow does not preclude it from doing other missions......while in the artic on Op hurricane they had a Buffalo running fuel drums to remote airfields in the high north......it also delivers cargo when needed to northern communities when it is critical, all sorts of none SAR related tasks..... 

This is exactly why civilians should not have input on military purchases.....if the government wants to control purchases control the funding aspect.....here is your funding go buy something........this is why DND advice is so important as they are the experts in field...

WHY did the air force want the C-27J, nobody knows because nobody cares......

 

I'll just refer you to Smallc's response on this.

[Smallc]

1 hour ago, Derek 2.0 said:

The C-27J, like the Herc and Buff, is equally short for take off and landing.....versus the C295.

Right, the C-27J takes 20 more meters to land than the C-295, but needs less space to take off.  Thanks for repeating me.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Smallc said:

Well, in my business, I certainly don't buy the most expensive piece of equipment.  I buy the least expensive one that performs adequately.  

I'd buy the one which performs best, unless it was wildly overpriced, because the cheapest usually doesn't do all that good a job and tends to be less reliable and to not last as long.

[Smallc]

15 minutes ago, Argus said:

I'd buy the one which performs best, unless it was wildly overpriced, because the cheapest usually doesn't do all that good a job and tends to be less reliable and to not last as long.

Of course, there's no evidence that such musing applies in this case.  The C-295 and the two smaller aircraft that it's based off of have been performing for decades, without much in the way of issues.  That, whilst being less expensive to purchase and operate (about half as much when it comes to operations).  That's quite a difference for something that can still do the job.

I mean, it isn't like Airbus doesn't know how to build aircraft.

[Wilber]

33 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Right, the C-27J takes 20 more meters to land than the C-295, but needs less space to take off.  Thanks for repeating me.

Empty? Max Take Off Weight? Carrying the same payload? Not saying you are wrong but based on what?

[Derek 2.0]

36 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Right, the C-27J takes 20 more meters to land than the C-295, but needs less space to take off.  Thanks for repeating me.

 

I didn't repeat you, I proved your claim wrong, with figures from both aircraft makers........

 

C-27J

 

Quote

The C-27J can land on almost any surface — snow, sand, and soft soil below CBR 4 (California Bearing Ratio is one of the most widely used methods for measuring load-bearing structure of unprepared airstrips and the soil underneath it). Additionally, it is capable of taking off from and landing on unprepared airstrips less than 500 meters long-a significantly shorter distance than other competitors in its class. Moreover, the aircraft has the best ground manoeuvrability compared with other military transport aircraft, a quality that enables the C-27J to access to a larger number of airfields and airstrips around the country. The minimum strip width for ground inversion 12.1 m.

 

 

C-295

 

Quote

The C295’s STOL capability combined with a strong landing gear enable it to operate in the most austere locations with the worst conditions for take-off and landings. The aircraft is a tactical military transport with a light footprint to enable operations from short (no longer than 670 m / 2,200 ft), soft and rough (CBR 2) unprepared airstrips. The C295 is also designed to provide outstanding low-level flight characteristics for tactical missions, flying at speeds down to 110 kt.

 

Stand to be corrected........if somehow you know better than Airbus and Finmeccanica 

[Derek 2.0]

12 minutes ago, Smallc said:

I mean, it isn't like Airbus doesn't know how to build aircraft.

Sure......and Dodge builds great minivans, but it doesn't make a minivan a Sprinter work van 

[Argus]

16 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Of course, there's no evidence that such musing applies in this case.  The C-295 and the two smaller aircraft that it's based off of have been performing for decades, without much in the way of issues. 

Well, I may not be an aeronautical genius like you, but it seems to me that in a country as big as Canada, with as few aircraft as we're going to have, one with double the range of the other and triple the payload would seem to be a BETTER aircraft for SAR.

 

[The_Squid]

45 minutes ago, Argus said:

Well, I may not be an aeronautical genius like you, but it seems to me that in a country as big as Canada, with as few aircraft as we're going to have, one with double the range of the other and triple the payload would seem to be a BETTER aircraft for SAR.

 

It is very clear you're not any sort of expert...  aeronautical or math...

5400km is the ferry range for the C295

5800km for the C27J

 

 

[Smallc]

54 minutes ago, Argus said:

Well, I may not be an aeronautical genius like you, but it seems to me that in a country as big as Canada, with as few aircraft as we're going to have, one with double the range of the other and triple the payload would seem to be a BETTER aircraft for SAR.

 

We wouldn't have been able to buy 16 C-27J within the budget - that's the flaw in your logic.  They also cost twice (!) as much to fly.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Smallc

[Smallc]

So anyway - the loaded landing distance of the C-27J is 340M - http://www.c-27j.ca/c-27j-spartan/right-sized/speed,-endurance-and-range/short-takeoff-and-landings

The loaded landing distance of the C-295W is 320M - http://www.airvectors.net/avc212.html

Edited December 10, 2016 by Smallc

[Omni]

8 minutes ago, Smallc said:

So anyway - the loaded landing distance of the C-27J is 340M - http://www.airvectors.net/avc212.html

The loaded landing distance of the C-295W is 320M - http://www.airvectors.net/avc212.html

Oh,well clearly then the 295 will save us money on brake pad replacements as well.

[Derek 2.0]

15 minutes ago, Smallc said:

So anyway - the loaded landing distance of the C-27J is 340M - http://www.airvectors.net/avc212.html

The loaded landing distance of the C-295W is 320M - http://www.airvectors.net/avc212.html

Your links go to the same page........both seeking donations to fund the website, and oddly enough, isn't linked with the builders of the C-27j or the C-295 

 

So anyways, are you suggesting "airvectors.net" knows more about the aircraft then their own builders?