Liberals purchase new SAR aircraft.

[Wilber]

Our Buffalos will be over fifty years old before they are replaced. If we expect the same service from its replacement, cheap should not be the first priority.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Argus, look at the lengths they are will to go to prove their point.....DND SOR had nothing to do with writing it to the C-27J......look at the reasons NRC gave to say it was to restraining......

It is a little bizarre, if you don't understand the bureaucratic mentality, for them to say it was wrong to require new aircraft meet the current level of service because the current level isn't properly 'defined' by the government of Canada, as opposed to DND.

[Argus]

42 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Our Buffalos will be over fifty years old before they are replaced. If we expect the same service from its replacement, cheap should not be the first priority.

It looks like it was pretty much the only priority.

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

Our Buffalos will be over fifty years old before they are replaced. If we expect the same service from its replacement, cheap should not be the first priority.

Cheap is not the criteria, it is cost/benefit. You don't operate aircraft for 50 years based on their purchase price, how they are maintained plays a far more important factor. Paying a lot of money does not guarantee you a better product.

[Wilber]

12 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Cheap is not the criteria, it is cost/benefit. You don't operate aircraft for 50 years based on their purchase price, how they are maintained plays a far more important factor. Paying a lot of money does not guarantee you a better product.

If you are going to operate an aircraft for fifty years you buy the most capable aircraft available, that gives the greatest cost benefit. 

We did that when we bought the Buffalos These new aircraft still can't match its STOL capability. We did it when we bought C-17's and C130J's in spite of much whining from the opposition of the time.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Wilber

[Omni]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

 

You mean they have passed a minimum standard , that there can be aircraft that are safer than others, built to a higher degree of detail.....

You can install solid gold toilet bowls if you like, but that has naught to do with safety. 

[Argus]

32 minutes ago, Omni said:

You can install solid gold toilet bowls if you like, but that has naught to do with safety. 

Are you saying, range, speed, carrying capacity and size have nothing to do with the value of an aircraft for search and rescue?

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

Are you saying, range, speed, carrying capacity and size have nothing to do with the value of an aircraft for search and rescue?

Nope, I'm not saying that at all. I was pointing out that aircraft in Canada must meet certain requirements to be granted an AWC. The required parameters you speak of were met by the aircraft selected.

[Smallc]

4 hours ago, Wilber said:

Our Buffalos will be over fifty years old before they are replaced. If we expect the same service from its replacement, cheap should not be the first priority.

And you feel that Airbus, as a new entrant to the aircraft market, won't support their product.

2 hours ago, Wilber said:

If you are going to operate an aircraft for fifty years you buy the most capable aircraft available, that gives the greatest cost benefit. 

We did that when we bought the Buffalos These new aircraft still can't match its STOL capability. We did it when we bought C-17's and C130J's in spite of much whining from the opposition of the time.

And that seems to be exactly what happened.  The C-27J has a little bit more capacity for a lot more money.  The C-295W won because of that.

[Smallc]

5 hours ago, Army Guy said:

When an Inuit boy named Burton Winters became lost in a blizzard on the sea-ice off Labrador in January 2012, all three search-and-rescue planes in Atlantic Canada were — for mechanical reasons — unable to deploy to search for him. The 14-year-old died from hypothermia before a search-and-rescue helicopter was finally sent, more than two days after he went missing.
 

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-byers-stewart-webb-passing-the-buck-on-search-and-rescue

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/a-year-after-tragedy-search-and-rescue-doubts-persist-1.1319865

Good thing we bought new planes then.

[The_Squid]

5 hours ago, Army Guy said:

When an Inuit boy named Burton Winters became lost in a blizzard on the sea-ice off Labrador in January 2012, all three search-and-rescue planes in Atlantic Canada were — for mechanical reasons — unable to deploy to search for him. The 14-year-old died from hypothermia before a search-and-rescue helicopter was finally sent, more than two days after he went missing.
 

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-byers-stewart-webb-passing-the-buck-on-search-and-rescue

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/a-year-after-tragedy-search-and-rescue-doubts-persist-1.1319865

So you're saying the Airbus plane couldn't have saved him....    

 

interesting take with nothing to substantiate it. 

[Argus]

13 hours ago, Omni said:

Nope, I'm not saying that at all. I was pointing out that aircraft in Canada must meet certain requirements to be granted an AWC. The required parameters you speak of were met by the aircraft selected.

Said parameters having been altered so that the aircraft didn't even have to be as capable as the 40 year old models they're replacing.

[Wilber]

14 hours ago, Omni said:

Nope, I'm not saying that at all. I was pointing out that aircraft in Canada must meet certain requirements to be granted an AWC. The required parameters you speak of were met by the aircraft selected.

Military aircraft are not issued Type Certificates, they operate to a different set of rules than civil aircraft because they have to meet military requirements, not civil requirements. Those requirements are best understood by the military itself. 

[Omni]

43 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Military aircraft are not issued Type Certificates, they operate to a different set of rules than civil aircraft because they have to meet military requirements, not civil requirements. Those requirements are best understood by the military itself. 

True in most cases but not all. The C-295 also has a civil type certificate. 

[Wilber]

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

True in most cases but not all. The C-295 also has a civil type certificate. 

Which is good for Airbus but irrelevant for military purposes. It won't get it in Canada though unless civil operators buy them.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Wilber

[Army Guy]

23 hours ago, dre said:

I cant even imagine what you're going on about at this point. I did not even remotely suggest that only liberals pays taxes.

Im talking about common sense. Obviously the military cant decide on purchases... they have no money. If they ran bake sales or something I guess they could make financial decisions but they dont. The government takes money from the taxpayers to spend on a wide range of programs, and theres only so much to go around.

WTF are you talking about.....DND has no funding....taxpayers give their money to the government...the government then divides up the funding by dept.....hence DND annual Budget....which some of it is used for purchases.....like I said ALL government purchases over 25 K must go through PWSG......they buy, they decide, DND prays iot gets something close to what it wants..... But that is not so for all depts....

And lets not go there is only so much funding.....Liberals piss away 30 bil....that came out of who's ass exactly.....with plans for spending another 30 bil....not enough for SAR aircraft.. come on......

[Army Guy]

17 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Cheap is not the criteria, it is cost/benefit. You don't operate aircraft for 50 years based on their purchase price, how they are maintained plays a far more important factor. Paying a lot of money does not guarantee you a better product.

No it does not guarantee anything, but 90 % of time it does....most of the time better does mean it cost more.....

[Army Guy]

16 hours ago, Omni said:

You can install solid gold toilet bowls if you like, but that has naught to do with safety. 

I'm not sure why we are talking safety , or what you are going on about......I have said clearly more than once.....Canada sets minimum safety standards for aircraft.....it does not mean that aircraft can not be built to higher standards....IN regards to safety....not sure what you gold toilet has to do with anything...but I see this as a distraction on your part because it seems like you did not know what your talking about.....

[Army Guy]

23 hours ago, eyeball said:

Nobody gets a guarantee either. Sometimes shit just happens and lives are lost. There's no amount of money or resources that will prevent reality. 

 

This for you squid because you can't be bother to read all the posts....this was in reponse to Eyeball....and his above comment...thanks for keeping up....

 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

I'm not sure why we are talking safety , or what you are going on about......I have said clearly more than once.....Canada sets minimum safety standards for aircraft.....it does not mean that aircraft can not be built to higher standards....IN regards to safety....not sure what you gold toilet has to do with anything...but I see this as a distraction on your part because it seems like you did not know what your talking about.....

At least I hope you are finally getting the point about safety standards. What the discussion is about revolves around specific capabilities required to fulfill the job requirements. 

[?Impact]

20 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

No it does not guarantee anything, but 90 % of time it does....most of the time better does mean it cost more.....

Not at all. Most of the time cost is associated with extra bells and whistles. Some of them might impart true benefits, but if you don't need those benefits then they are essentially extra cost. Others might offer zero practical benefit, but some people might want them anyway. My $9.95 wrist watch from Wal-Mart is just as good (perhaps better) than the $15,000 Patek Phillipe watch I want. No, I'm not trying to imply that the Italian aircraft is just an ego aircraft, but obviously it has a very different value equation. Don't forget that the money saved allows for great flexibility. Perhaps we could only get 12 of the Italian jets instead of 16, or perhaps we are able to get outfit with better gear, or whatever.

[Army Guy]

15 hours ago, Smallc said:

Good thing we bought new planes then.

And I have said before, it is a good thing that any government has took this file and done something with it....But the liberals seen this as a political opportunity and seized it....they wanted nothing to do with the C-27J , because it already had a target marked on its back......The rewriting of DND specs had nothing to do with the C-27J, in fact I have already posted the reasons they changed the specs....nothing is mentioned about the C-27J.....it also states there was More than one aircraft that would have passed the specs....the C295 was not one of them.....

They go as far as stating that DND's SAR policies and specs are not backed up by governmental policy, that that level of service does not have to be followed and is nul and void....there for all those conditions that are set by DND are also nul and void.....after reading the source I provided you still have no flashing lights going off in your head.....then your right.....and im wrong....our government will go to any length it has to go to get its way.....including rewriting SAR policy, and standards...now it won't go up, it will not surpass DND's standards because that would mean the C-295 would not be picked....it means the quality of SAR service is going to go down.....

It also does not preclude the building of new SAR bases in the north, so range and speed requirements are not lost forever......which costs have not been included in any costing yet...

One more point to mention Australia purchased 10 C-27 J for 1.4 Bil dollars in 2012.....lets assume we still wanted 16 the cost would be just over 2.6 is a rough estimate....Not the double the cost as you said....in fact pretty comparable ....

[Army Guy]

18 minutes ago, Omni said:

At least I hope you are finally getting the point about safety standards. What the discussion is about revolves around specific capabilities required to fulfill the job requirements. 

No i'm not getting your point......What was said is each aircraft is built to have a minimum safety standard.....some companies have said those are not good enough we want to surpass the minimum standard.....so each plane is not of the same safety standard....but each plane does meet the minimum standard big fuc*ing deal......unless you have proof that the C-295 meets or exceeds the same safety standard as the C-27J, what is your point.....all the other capabilities see the C-27J in front....with exception of one price.....

[Smallc]

6 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

And I have said before, it is a good thing that any government has took this file and done something with it....But the liberals seen this as a political opportunity and seized it....they wanted nothing to do with the C-27J , because it already had a target marked on its back......The rewriting of DND specs had nothing to do with the C-27J, in fact I have already posted the reasons they changed the specs....nothing is mentioned about the C-27J.....it also states there was More than one aircraft that would have passed the specs....the C295 was not one of them.....

In fact, you have no evidence of that - the specs were written completely by an independent agency, and was signed off on by an international fairness monitor.

 

7 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

They go as far as stating that DND's SAR policies and specs are not backed up by governmental policy, that that level of service does not have to be followed and is nul and void....there for all those conditions that are set by DND are also nul and void.....after reading the source I provided you still have no flashing lights going off in your head.....then your right.....and im wrong....our government will go to any length it has to go to get its way.....including rewriting SAR policy, and standards...now it won't go up, it will not surpass DND's standards because that would mean the C-295 would not be picked....it means the quality of SAR service is going to go down.....

 

No - again, it says the standards are not defined.  The C-295 is able to keep us at what we currently can do.

 

8 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

One more point to mention Australia purchased 10 C-27 J for 1.4 Bil dollars in 2012.....lets assume we still wanted 16 the cost would be just over 2.6 is a rough estimate....Not the double the cost as you said....in fact pretty comparable ....

 You can't compare costing between countries.

[?Impact]

19 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

the liberals seen this as a political opportunity and seized it....they wanted nothing to do with the C-27J , because it already had a target marked on its back......The rewriting of DND specs had nothing to do with the C-27J, in fact I have already posted the reasons they changed the specs....nothing is mentioned about the C-27J.....it also states there was More than one aircraft that would have passed the specs....the C295 was not one of them.....

• RFP was release March 31, 2015 (long before Liberals)
• RFP was amended September 4, 2015 (still during Conservative mandate)
• RFP closed January 11, 2016 (shortly after new Liberal government)

Where exactly do you get that the Liberals has any involvement what so ever? It is valid to complain about the wrong aircraft, but when you make this some partisan exercise you are barking up the wrong tree.