Derek 2.0 Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: History has shown they much prefer to politicize total life cycle costs to doom projects not currently in favour. Or in the case of this Government, keep proposed figures (Super Hornet & C-295) out of the public eye......... Quote
Omni Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 15 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: I don't think Canada has any idea what actual flight hours costs are, so citing U.S. data has been normalized across several procurements. I guess it is just easier because the data is readily available. History has shown they much prefer to politicize total life cycle costs to doom projects not currently in favour. Do Americans have any kind of idea yet on the hourly cost of the F 35? Quote
Smallc Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 3 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said: No, you're the one suggesting the C-295 is the cats ass though........with the Trudeau government's selection, we are not only losing numbers (and tankers), but a far more capable aircraft already making up the majority of the FWSAR fleet.......a case could be made for the C-295 or C-27J as a Buff replacement, but not replacing the Herc..... And the same could be said of the C-27J Further, there's not any firm statement one way or the other on the fate of the 4-5 AAR equipped C-130H models based in Winnipeg. Further still - I didn't say that the C-295 is better than any of the competitors, other than in the areas of minimum landing distance, and acquisition/operating costs. What I actually said (your word twisting is why I don't usually respond to you) is that it's able to perform the SAR job that this competition was designed to fill, and do it at a lower cost. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 1 minute ago, Smallc said: And the same could be said of the C-27J So? Where did I say I favored the C-27J? I've been supportive of carrying on with newer model Herc since the Js entered service Compared to the C-295, sure, I'd take the more capable C-27J any day of the week though...... 4 minutes ago, Smallc said: Further, there's not any firm statement one way or the other on the fate of the 4-5 AAR equipped C-130H models based in Winnipeg. Except from the Federal Government: Quote Following a rigorous, open and transparent competition, the Government of Canada today announced the awarding of a contract for $2.4 billion to Airbus Defence and Space to replace Canada’s fleets of CC115 Buffalo and legacy CC130 Hercules aircraft. The company has partnered with Newfoundland-based PAL Aerospace for maintenance and support services.The contract will provide a complete, modern and technologically advanced search and rescue solution, including maintenance and support services up to 2043. Seems pretty firm to me.....as I asked you already, who is going to fly, crew and maintain them........they are SAR aircraft, in a SAR squadron, being replaced by Trudeau's shitty pick. 10 minutes ago, Smallc said: it's able to perform the SAR job that this competition was designed to fill and do it at a lower cost. Not as well as a Hercules..........but you're right about lower cost......having its engines built just outside Trudeau's riding doesn't hurt either Quote
The_Squid Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 4 hours ago, Army Guy said: What does ferry range have to do with anything....that's with no load or cargo.....not much good on a SAR call without no load is it....put some weight in the plane and you'll see the range drops a lot......what is the range with max payload anyways...... Neither are you or smallc but it has not stopped the both of you.....but once again your sticking up for however choose this plane because they can do no wrong..... over the experts with in DND, and the only point you can come up with is price.....but how can be...All the aircraft have not been priced out to 40 years.....and hear I thought that was law....or have the liberals changed that...... SAR planes are not going to be fully loaded when they go out on SAR. Experts have chosen. This plane is more than adequate for the job. Quote
Argus Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 10 hours ago, Smallc said: I'm not the one that brought up the C-130 as an option. No, you're the one that doesn't actually give a damn about the quality or capabilities of Canadian SAR since it doesn't personally affect you. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 7 hours ago, The_Squid said: SAR planes are not going to be fully loaded when they go out on SAR. Experts have chosen. This plane is more than adequate for the job. Experts? What experts? Not the ones from the Canadian air force. You mean the experts in the PMO? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 27 minutes ago, Argus said: No, you're the one that doesn't actually give a damn about the quality or capabilities of Canadian SAR since it doesn't personally affect you. As with so many of your assertions, you have yet to prove that the C-295 is incapable of meeting Canadian FWSAR requirements. Quote
Army Guy Posted December 11, 2016 Author Report Posted December 11, 2016 9 hours ago, The_Squid said: SAR planes are not going to be fully loaded when they go out on SAR. Experts have chosen. This plane is more than adequate for the job. So you do have SAR experience....great, tell the room what are some of the SAR aircrafts taskings going to be.....wait , you still have not researched it yet have you....i'll wait.... Experts , what experts....the liberal cabinet, the money guys what experts are you talking about...you and SmallC.....i'd like to know who knows better than the guys that originally seen all the aircraft in the line up and choose the C-27J......guys like SAR techs, and the airforce.....i'd be curious to know you trumps them.....dollars to donuts it is the money 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 11, 2016 Author Report Posted December 11, 2016 1 hour ago, Smallc said: As with so many of your assertions, you have yet to prove that the C-295 is incapable of meeting Canadian FWSAR requirements. That was not the question.....the question was what was the best aircraft for the job.....and who within DND picked it and why did they pick it......and why has that advice been thrown out the window....like it always is.....this aircraft is a political choice nothing more....you make it out to be about dollars and sense....and throw out any info that says other wise....it has nothing to do with the best aircraft, it has everything to do with off sets, and lower price....and yet not price comparison have been made available. DND does not need a procurement cell , it has got the liberals who are experts and all knowing.....they can tell at a glance what is need and how much.....all while bending DND over the table....and whispering in their ear , you better smile for the media .....or you'll get some more of this.....and then telling the public all is good , see what we bought...nice, shiny...these are not the driods your looking for...... 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 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Army Guy said: So you do have SAR experience....great, tell the room what are some of the SAR aircrafts taskings going to be.....wait , you still have not researched it yet have you....i'll wait.... Experts , what experts....the liberal cabinet, the money guys what experts are you talking about...you and SmallC.....i'd like to know who knows better than the guys that originally seen all the aircraft in the line up and choose the C-27J......guys like SAR techs, and the airforce.....i'd be curious to know you trumps them.....dollars to donuts it is the money guy... Yes, yes... I'm sure you've pulled bodies from plane wreckage while your buddies were being shot at by the Taliban... You seem to have an amazing array of experiences. Saying we should buy the planes SAR techs and pilots want us to is absurd. Edited December 11, 2016 by The_Squid Quote
Army Guy Posted December 11, 2016 Author Report Posted December 11, 2016 (edited) 22 minutes ago, The_Squid said: Yes, yes... I'm sure you've pulled bodies from plane wreckage while your buddies were being shot at by the Taliban... You seem to have an amazing array of experiences. I have not once said I have done any SAR work......nor was a SAR tech, but I have seen people hurt and dead because of political purchases, and if that some how hurts your ego, or your perceived knowledge on military matters , I frankly don't give a rats ass... .........But if your going to sit there and tell all of us that these planes were "not" looked at by SAR TECHS and the AIRFORCE, and they did not express an opinion then sir....your a lair..... Is this how you debate....when you can not answer the question, you turn to personal attacks.....sounds like a couple of other posters I once knew..... Edited December 11, 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.
The_Squid Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 1 minute ago, Army Guy said: I have not once said I have done any SAR work......nor was a SAR tech Then why should you have an opinion about SAR planes? You're not SAR. Shut up. 2 minutes ago, Army Guy said: but I have seen people hurt and dead because of political purchases, and if that some how hurts your ego, or your perceived knowledge on military matters , I frankly don't give a rats ass I don't believe you.... what else do you pretend to be on the interwebs? 3 minutes ago, Army Guy said: But if your going to sit there and tell all of us that these planes were "not" looked at by SAR TECHS and the AIRFORCE, and they did not express an opinion then sir....your a lair..... SAR techs do not procure planes. Please tell us why these new planes are not suitable for SAR? They're better than the planes we currently have doing the same job and are used all over the world for the same duties. Quote
Army Guy Posted December 11, 2016 Author Report Posted December 11, 2016 1 minute ago, The_Squid said: Then why should you have an opinion about SAR planes? You're not SAR. Shut up. I don't believe you.... what else do you pretend to be on the interwebs? SAR techs do not procure planes. Please tell us why these new planes are not suitable for SAR? They're better than the planes we currently have doing the same job and are used all over the world for the same duties. what are you 4 now.. stole dads log in.....and now your playing with the big boys.....come on squid....take your meds and come back to earth..... Like I have already said, I don't care what you think. No SAR techs do not procure planes.....but they would be consulted to what they were looking for in an aircraft, what would be useful and what would not be useful, they would also be involved in some of the testing.....right along side of the Airforce guys.....why is that such a hard thing to comprehend......it's common sense... I'm going to repeat myself again.....I did not say this aircraft is not suitable for this project, in fact several hundred aircraft are suitable....The C-27J aircraft was the one the airforce and SAR techs had chosen as their favorite....but you act as if they are not able to conduct testing or develop an opinion.....this file has been open for 14 years, not counting the appox 5 years before that when they starting to look into replacement aircraft......some where along the line one would think they could have checked things out....But all that research all that testing, all that expertise was thrown out the window ....by whom....by the money guy.....because is opinion would trump all of that.....Now that might make sense in your part of the world.....by why even involve the military if the money guy is going to pick anyways.... 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.
Argus Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 2 hours ago, Smallc said: As with so many of your assertions, you have yet to prove that the C-295 is incapable of meeting Canadian FWSAR requirements. As with so many of your defenses of Liberal actions you demonstrate that the bare minimum is all you seek. If you have children will you throw a party when they come home from school with C's and D's? Hey, they passed after all. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
The_Squid Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 13 minutes ago, Army Guy said: I did not say this aircraft is not suitable for this project Then this plane will be fine... cheaper AND will do the job. Win-win. Quote
Argus Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 54 minutes ago, The_Squid said: Saying we should buy the planes SAR techs and pilots want us to is absurd. It is? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
The_Squid Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 Just now, Argus said: It is? Yes. Very. They rescue people... they aren't aviation experts. This plane made the short list and will do the job very well. Quote
Argus Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 1 minute ago, The_Squid said: Then this plane will be fine... cheaper AND will do the job. Win-win. A pickup with a cover could, in most cases, transport people to hospital. They could do the job. Are they ideal? Hardly. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, The_Squid said: Yes. Very. They rescue people... they aren't aviation experts. This plane made the short list and will do the job very well. SAR techs and pilots aren't experts in what kind of aircraft would best help them do their job?! Who is? I mean, you don't seem to have any issue with yourself making a judgement. How do you feel you know more than they do? Edited December 11, 2016 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
The_Squid Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 Just now, Argus said: A pickup with a cover could, in most cases, transport people to hospital. They could do the job. Are they ideal? Hardly. Stupid analogy. These are both modern, brand new, high-tech aircraft. To compare the Airbus to a pickup is asinine. Quote
The_Squid Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 Just now, Argus said: Sar techs and pilots aren't experts in what kind of aircraft would best help them do their job?! This plane, and others, were on the short list because they all met the specifications that were determined to be necessary. Quote
dre Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 1 minute ago, Argus said: It is? That should be considered but it is only one factor. SAR should provide their requirements. Range, speed, payload, etc. After that its out of their hands, and no matter how many times you use "money guys" in the pejorative, the fact is economics will always be a big part of any purchase. Sounds to me like the government has bought a good new plane, that had been needed for a long time and saved a bit of money. Cool deal! Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 Just now, The_Squid said: Stupid analogy. These are both modern, brand new, high-tech aircraft. To compare the Airbus to a pickup is asinine. The analogy is actually perfect given the response of you guys is "It will do the job - in most cases". A pickup could act as an ambulance in most cases and be way cheaper than a real ambulance. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Army Guy Posted December 11, 2016 Author Report Posted December 11, 2016 4 minutes ago, The_Squid said: Yes. Very. They rescue people... they aren't aviation experts. This plane made the short list and will do the job very well. Keep going, man this is getting to be to funny......pilots and SAR techs are not experts in aviation or SAR......I just wondering if these guys are not or chould not be consulted or involved in the testing who is ? the money guy...some politician.....who exactly......your ignorance in this subject is overwhelming..... 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.
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.