Liberals purchase new SAR aircraft.

[Argus]

30 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

Liberals chose the C295, therefor it sucks.   

Army Guy never hesitated to criticize the Conservatives. The political hacks are the ones defending this inferior aircraft BECAUSE the Liberals chose it.

[?Impact]

8 minutes ago, Argus said:

Army Guy never hesitated to criticize the Conservatives. The political hacks are the ones defending this inferior aircraft BECAUSE the Liberals chose it.

Duh, Army Guy is complaining about the requirements that were 'changed' in 2010. Nobody has yet to give a single detail as to why this is not the right aircraft.

[Rue]

I am just trying to stick to the stats as Army Guy has tried. I would have preferred people comparing the crafts themselves then the personal attacks on Army.

I defer to him and Derek on these kinds of issues.

[Derek 2.0]

Another bungled procurement?

 

Quote

 

“Team Spartan’s main allegation is that the selected airplane is unfit to safely perform certain key search and rescue tasks and missions required by Canada and should have been, therefore, disqualified,” the release states. “Based on the above, Team Spartan has applied to the Federal Court for an order requesting that Canada cancel the contract with Airbus and award same to Leonardo.”

 

 

[Army Guy]

Derek, the liberals have already spoken, it has wings, a few engines, and wheels it is good enough....come on....i mean you don't have to stand up if your over 6 ft tall, never have to wear a helmet, or ear phones for comms, nor do we have to worry about the floor not being reinforced.....according to the liberal experts some of which are here on this forum, all you need is a folding chair, some bino's and a window to look out of.....and maybe SAR techs might have to jump once or twice.....

[Derek 2.0]

13 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Derek, the liberals have already spoken, it has wings, a few engines, and wheels it is good enough....come on....i mean you don't have to stand up if your over 6 ft tall, never have to wear a helmet, or ear phones for comms, nor do we have to worry about the floor not being reinforced.....according to the liberal experts some of which are here on this forum, all you need is a folding chair, some bino's and a window to look out of.....and maybe SAR techs might have to jump once or twice.....

 

So it appears.......but more from the CBC:

 

Quote

 

The company cites a number of grounds, including a claim the C-295W does not meet the specifications originally set out by the Royal Canadian Air Force, notably the ability to "perform mandatory long-range missions stipulated" in the request for proposals.

Leonardo's court filing also raises alleged safety concerns related to the absence of a redundant power system in the aircraft.

"The necessary consequences of this inadequacy should have been the disqualification (if no modification was proposed) or rating penalization (if a modification was proposed) of the Airbus proposal," said the filing.

 

 

Why would Canada want a long range FWSAR aircraft, with a redundant emergency power system, by which I assume the absent auxiliary power unit within the c-295W?

 

Whats a couple hundred million between friends?

 

 

Quote

 

In late November, the Liberal government announced it was buying the C-295 in a two-step procurement for a total price of $4.7 billion over the next two decades.

The first step — at a cost of $2.4 billion — involves the purchase of aircraft, simulators and 11 years of support.

The second step involves a future in-service support program that will have to be negotiated with Airbus, at an estimated cost of $2.3 billion.

However, in the request for proposals, which was filed in court as part of the supporting documents, all bidders were told their package could not exceed $3.4 billion, including in-service maintenance support.

 

 

I smelt a rat from the moment this deal was made public............wait for the legal challenge once/if they purchase the "interim" Super Hornets.....

[Army Guy]

Got to love these guys.....Why are they is such a rush to Purchase Military equipment ? the liberal have never been in a rush to spend on the Military .....and Why are they brushing off the advice of DND ? I'd really like to know who within the Liberal Cabinet is advising them on these purchases.......and what their qualifications are? either fire the CDS and his cowboys, and hire on this liberal advisor to run DND....or give the CDS some strings, so he can dance the liberal tune....i ain't got nobody....

[Derek 2.0]

Just now, Army Guy said:

I'd really like to know who within the Liberal Cabinet is advising them on these purchases.......and what their qualifications are?

 

Well they just announced before Christmas that PAL Aerospace of St. John's "won" the 20 year contract to maintain the new FWSAR fleet.......a happy accident that the local MP is friends (like spent Christmas together friends) with the Prime Minister........ 

[Army Guy]

Clear and sunny ways indeed......perhaps the PM is not as transparent as he said he'd like to be.....

[Derek 2.0]

6 hours ago, Army Guy said:

perhaps the PM is not as transparent as he said he'd like to be.....

 

I'm shocked I tells yah  

[Wilber]

Historically, Canada operates its equipment until it can no longer bolt things back together as fast as they fall apart. If the Buffalo is any indication, we will be operating these things for a good 50 years or more. Who knows what else they will be required to do in that time. We should be buying the most capable aircraft available because we will use it until it has nothing left.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Wilber

[Argus]

A story on the ongoing legal challenge from the Italians on the purchase of our new airbus SAR aircraft produces a startling statement from National Defense. They say it doesn't matter that our new SAR aircraft can't reach a site near the North Pole in one day. Two days is fine. Even though the original requirements said an aircraft had to get there within 13 hours.

In its affidavit, Leonardo alleges the Airbus aircraft fails to meet the government’s basic criteria since it can’t conduct a mission to the outer regions of the military’s allotted rescue area within 13 flying hours.

Personally I think even 13 hours is far too much given the likely temperature up there. And I'd like to quote one of the comments made in the comments section of the story because it demonstrates not only how poor an idea it is to need two days to get to a possible rescue, but also how much our SAR abilities in the north have fallen and will continue to fall.

I worked in NDHQ when the BOXTOP Crash happened, and it took Canadian SAR Techs three days to reach the survivors. IATA went ballistic when they found out that the Canadian Armed Forces could not arrive at a Crash Site within hours. Canada's Arctic is used for hundreds of Polar Flights daily, most with passengers wearing Short sleeved Shirts and shorts. IATA mandated that Canada must respond to a Major Air Disaster of a Commercial Airliner within hours of a crash, not two-three days later. 

When I was a member of MAJAID out of the Canadian Airborne Centre Edmonton, CFB Edmonton was an Air Force Base. We had a Standard of Excellence to be at a Major Air Disaster crash within hours, and had a variety of aircraft located at CFB Edmonton to meet that need. Canadian Forces Search and Rescue personnel MUST, without exception, respond to high north crashes in hours, or the casualties will be catastrophic. The victims will be eaten overnight, and crash survivors can freeze to death in hours. 

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/liberals+rescue+aircraft+could+take+days+reach+north+pole/13354609/story.html

 

[Wilber]

Would not a C-130 be able to fill the bill range wise carrying the same load as the C-27J?

It does really surprise me that they chose an aircraft without a stand alone APU for use in remote areas and with little or no ground support. I don't get that at all.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Wilber

[Argus]

14 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Would not a C-130 be able to fill the bill range wise carrying the same load as the C-27J?

It does really surprise me that they chose an aircraft without a stand alone APU for use in remote areas and with little or no ground support. I don't get that at all.

Would it help your understanding if you knew the engines will be made by Pratt and Whitney in Quebec?

[Wilber]

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

Would it help your understanding if you knew the engines will be made by Pratt and Whitney in Quebec?

Likely.

[DogOnPorch]

No APU?? Seriously?

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

No APU?? Seriously?

 

No floor mats either...too expensive.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No floor mats either...too expensive.

 

Lemme guess...shotgun starters? Those were always fun...

[DogOnPorch]

Or...keep the engines running...I'm just hopping in for smokes??

[Wilber]

12 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

No APU?? Seriously?

Apparently it can use one engine in "APU Mode" running with the prop not turning but that doesn't provide any redundancy in the event of an engine failure. I don't know what it uses for an electric backup and it won't have a pneumatic backup without an APU.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Wilber said:

Apparently it can use one engine in "APU Mode" running with the prop not turning but that doesn't provide any redundancy in the event of an engine failure. I don't know what it uses for an electric backup and it won't have a pneumatic backup without an APU.

 

Leave the engines running...amazing.

[DogOnPorch]

Who will rescue the rescuers??? is the next logical question...heh.

[Wilber]

Running an engine with the prop stopped would work fine as an APU although I don't see how it wouldn't burn a lot more fuel than a smaller turbine. It provides none of the redundancy of an APU in the event of an engine failure. With engine failures on twin engine jets, after the emergency actions are carried out the next thing on the checklist is, start the APU.

[Argus]

More from the SAR files. It's starting to look like the Liberals wanted Airbus to win for reasons having nothing to do with the capabilities of the aircraft. All the bidders were told the government was only willing to pay $3.4 billion.  The Italian consortium came in under budget. The Airbus bid - which was accepted - came in at a billion dollars OVER budget. But it seems the government changed the amount it was willing to pay, raising it to $4.7 billion. It just didn't tell anyone. Or at least, it says it didn't tell anyone. Sure was lucky for Airbus, though, huh? What a coinkinkidink!

Someone was being paid off here.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/search-and-rescue-aircraft-budget-jumped-more-than-1-billion-but-dnd-didnt-tell-bidders

[cannuck]

Have to burst a few bubbles on how ALL government spending is done (or variations of this example)

There will be a "consultant" somewhere in the mix, we find usually at 10%.  He will submit some paperwork, but most will ask what is he real function and why is he worth so much?   He will be from a third country, where neither the donor/buyer country or beneficiary/selling country has an legal status.   His real job is to open or simply deposit to existing offshore bank accounts, trusts or some other entity to which the bureaucrats negotiating the deal (from both side) will have access but not traceable ownership.

Decisions are indeed made upon who makes the best deal...for the bureaucrats.  In fairness, this is usually NOT done at the political level, but it certainly has and does happen.