Derek 2.0 Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 6 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: 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. Oh I agree, as I said in previous posts, I personally favored the latest J Hercs developed for the USCG.....the C-27J was to be a "cheaper" compromise (as in USCG service)......this Government went the even cheaper route, that just so happened to have its engines made in Trudeau's hometown......next time a plane crashes in the Arctic, or a fishing boat is in distress in the Atlantic, and Trudeau's C-295s have to cut the search even shorter to RTB for fuel, I hope this Government is held to account, or better yet, looked back on with contempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Omni said: 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. You don't know what you're talking about..........our Herc SAR aircraft do carry such loads to aide in various searchs......furthermore, the Buffs, Hercs and the C-27J, unlike the C-295, are capable of landing on strips of 500m (or less)......an important feature for Canada's remote Northern communities. Edited December 10, 2016 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said: ..this Government went the even cheaper route, that just so happened to have its engines made in Trudeau's hometown... Well, there 'ya go....makes sense now ! But there is still plenty of time for this procurement to go sideways, like most of them do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said: You don't know what you're talking about..........our Herc SAR aircraft do carry such loads to aide in various searchs......furthermore, the Buffs, Hercs and the C-27J, unlike the C-295, are capable of landing on strips of 500m (or less)......an important feature for Canada's remote Northern communities. Why would you need to be able to carry a tank on a sar mission i wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Well, there 'ya go....makes sense now ! But there is still plenty of time for this procurement to go sideways, like most of them do. No, this deal is signed. Are you still smarting over the failure of the F 35? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, Omni said: No, this deal is signed. Are you still smarting over the failure of the F 35? Signed deals with Canada do not always mean completed contracts. Succeeding governments love to pay cancellation fees and start over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 1 minute ago, Omni said: Why would you need to be able to carry a tank on a sar mission i wonder. Again, you don't have a clue 5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Well, there 'ya go....makes sense now ! But there is still plenty of time for this procurement to go sideways, like most of them do. Yes indeed......the optical system is even made in the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development's riding.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 5 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said: Again, you don't have a clue Yes indeed......the optical system is even made in the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development's riding.... I wonder why a plane with a further range than a J-herc would have to refuel when it has better range than the J? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Omni said: I wonder why a plane with a further range than a J-herc would have to refuel when it has better range than the J? Huh? Are you suggesting the C-295 has "better range" then the Herc? Edited December 10, 2016 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 Just now, Derek 2.0 said: Huh? Are you suggesting the C-295 has "better range" then the Herc? Look it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, Omni said: Look it up. I just provided you cites from both Airbus and Lockheed......maybe you'd better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said: I just provided you cites from both Airbus and Lockheed......maybe you'd better Airbus wins by about 800 nm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 Just now, Omni said: Airbus wins by about 800 nm. No......it doesn't......the Herc has nearly double the range with nearly triple the load Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted December 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 9 hours ago, Omni said: Why would you need to be able to carry a tank on a sar mission i wonder. 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...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 If an airliner goes down, they won't be sending just 1 C-295. That's a non argument. Such a response would involve multiple assets and departments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted December 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 11 hours 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. I did not say this aircraft was inadequate for the job, what I did say was this aircraft is not as good as the C-27J, and if you had read my posts in a lot more areas than just payload, ....just for the record the C-27J was the number one choice by the Air force....you know the guys that fly them, it was also the number one pick by the SAR tech community....good fu**ing figure........they are the experts in the field......Now here is the tough question.....what is you qualifications , are you a pilot of a SAR aircraft....do you do SAR for a living....Next question, who has these qualifications with the government.....I mean someone must know something about this topic to disregard the militaries top choice.....maybe taken a ride in a plane once, seen a SAR aircraft at an air show once....maybe even talked to a SAR tech....WOW that would be enough...... Army Guy is just relaying that info that the airforce has made available to everyone......and now asking questions as to why not the airforces model.....the C-27J.....Price keeps coming up and yet no one has released any comparisons at all, nor have they release the 40 year costing that is required by law....this purchase was rammed down our throats because the Super hornet deal had seen the Liberals caught red handed trying to sole source them.....the same shit the cons tried and failed .....the C-27J was not chosen because Justin did not like it.....and because he is an expert on these matters.... keeping in mind I did the same when it was the cons in power as well.....Now i'm labeled a whinner,or complainer ...... just so happens this whinner has dragged young Canadians off the battle field, with injuries that are horrific in nature ....all because of poor choices made by our civilian government in the world of purchasing.... because it was cheaper, or made in a certain place, or they liked it because of the many offsets it provided.....not once was the life of Canadian soldiers taken into consideration as the prime reason to buy something......And over time you develop this attitude.....Many of you say you support the military, except when it comes down to money and funding....then it is fuc* them.....then don't need shit.....Ya I see all the eyes drop to the ground , you start kicking some dirt around with your feet....because you know it is true....I've earned my right to complain or whine.....I have paid my taxes just like you do......Don't like it then don't respond to my posts.....That is my rant for the day.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 As for the last part of your post - civilian oversight of the military is seen as crucial in all western democracies, for a very good reason. The public purse and the public well being must be protected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted December 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 1 minute ago, Smallc said: If an airliner goes down, they won't be sending just 1 C-295. That's a non argument. Such a response would involve multiple assets and departments. Have you researched any SAR exericises......NON Argument you don't know what your talking about.....SAR exericises these type of response all the time......and why is that.....And yes a response would involve as many depts as possiable.....just trying to think what depts would have short take off aircraft with the range to get to a remote area such as the north.....and what if the remote area does not have a landing area long enough to handle hercs....then what ...well there is LAPES drops or para drops.....not the best way to deliver equipment but it can be done....the best way is to have a plane land and off load it....but what in the hell do I know..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 Just now, Army Guy said: Have you researched any SAR exericises......NON Argument you don't know what your talking about.....SAR exericises these type of response all the time......and why is that.....And yes a response would involve as many depts as possiable.....just trying to think what depts would have short take off aircraft with the range to get to a remote area such as the north.....and what if the remote area does not have a landing area long enough to handle hercs 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted December 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 7 minutes ago, Smallc said: As for the last part of your post - civilian oversight of the military is seen as crucial in all western democracies, for a very good reason. The public purse and the public well being must be protected. Yes because Canada has taken great care of our military by equipping it with the latest and greatest equipment available..... it has kept their numbers at a whooping 65,000 personal, that could take Toronto on a good day.....of course that's not saying much , it is Toronto after all....and our military has a long history of plotting coups and such things...... The military is not the threat that you paint it to be.....it does not have aspirations of taken over the country....with 65,000 people, or just under 9000 combat troops.... And nobody has said the military should not have oversight, but that is not what we have what we have is micro managing to the extreme, making it almost impossible to get anything done.....but don't take my word on it, check the media for retiring generals and see what they have to say...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted December 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 8 minutes 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). This is going round and round ......Why did the Military want the C-27J and why.....was it just because they liked the colors it came in, maybe it was the free lunch.....then ask this question why the C295......or do you have some insider information.....that your not saying...why the experts advice was not taken.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 The latest and greatest is exactly the problem - we need the least expensive equipment that is capable of doing the job. The C-295 is less expensive and about half as expensive to fly. It can also do what's required of it. That's a win win, and that's why we have civilian oversight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 16 hours ago, Smallc said: 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 16 hours ago, Smallc said: There's no evidence that the aircraft selected is incapable of doing the job. That's a pretty damned low bar to surpass. But I suppose it's in keeping with your general philosophy about hiring people for important work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 31 minutes ago, Smallc said: As for the last part of your post - civilian oversight of the military is seen as crucial in all western democracies, for a very good reason. The public purse and the public well being must be protected. When has Canadian political oversight EVER protected the public purse in military procurement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.