Argus Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Smallc said: What are you talking about? It was proven that they doctored the commitment. It doesn't seem like you mind that they doctored it to exclude the Hercules. 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 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Argus said: Not good ENOUGH when there are lives on the line. It would be supreme irony if Trudeau's plane goes down in the ocean or the far north and the new SAR planes aren't able to get to him... Why wouldn't the new SAR planes be able to get to him? Quote
Wilber Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Smallc said: Sure - but it costs a lot more to buy and operate. We got more planes for our money. They are replacing 13 Hercs and 6 Buffalos with 16 C-295's. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 6 minutes ago, Wilber said: They are replacing 13 Hercs and 6 Buffalos with 16 C-295's. OK, so isn't that a net loss of capability based on the Hercs' cargo capacity ? Why were Hercs needed before ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Argus said: It doesn't seem like you mind that they doctored it to exclude the Hercules. They didn't. Quote
Smallc Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 13 minutes ago, Wilber said: They are replacing 13 Hercs and 6 Buffalos with 16 C-295's. That's not correct. The C-130H (and 1 remaining E) had dual roles (SAR and transport) and in fact 5 of them had triple roles (SAR, transport, and AAR). These planes will have only one job. Also, I haven't seen anything to say that the newest H models - those equipped for AAR and based in Winnipeg, are to be retired. Quote
Wilber Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 The C-295 is no replacement for a Herc. Neither is the C-27 but it's closer. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, Wilber said: The C-295 is no replacement for a Herc. Neither is the C-27 but it's closer. The C-27J is a lot closer to the C-295W than the C-130J. Anyway - we weren't replacing all of the functions of the Hurculese - only one. That function should be well served by the C-295W, which met the independent specifications. Quote
Army Guy Posted December 12, 2016 Author Report Posted December 12, 2016 2 hours ago, Smallc said: What are you talking about? It was proven that they doctored the commitment. DID they really doctor the specs....or did NRC doctor the specs..... http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/fixed-wing-search-rescue-aircraft-2010.page Quote Principal conclusions The SOR as written is over-constrained. Stated mission scenarios, preservation of the status quo regarding standby posture, CF crewing, and the four existing main operating bases may limit the potential number of solutions industry could propose. The stated objective of the SOR is that new FWSAR aircraft provide a level of service to Canadians equal to that currently provided; a level that is not currently defined in Government of Canada policy. An aircraft compliant with the SOR as written may not achieve the above objective. HMM someone said something about specs....who was that.....The new SAR aircraft was to be able to provide Canadians with an equal service that is provided today....more on this later..... Quote Recommendations A principal recommendation is that the SOR be amended to better reflect a capability-based requirements rationale rather than a platform-centric approach. The capabilities required should not refer explicitly to those provided by existing DND FWSAR fleets. The SOR should describe the FWSAR capability sought by the Government of Canada in terms of SAR service to Canadians. It should also include a list of mandatory requirements reflecting the nature of service to be delivered and the timely delivery of this service. The SOR should also include a minimum list of constraints on any proposals. This document provides recommendations regarding the list of mandatory requirements and constraints. NRC recommends that the FWSAR SOR be amended in light of the review documented herein. We can not compare them to aircraft already existing....because new aircraft should be able to outperform 30 year old aircraft one would assume....NO not the case....they need to instead reflect on the new SAR capabilities sought by the government of Canada in terms of SAR services to Canadians.......and NOT SAR services that are currently provided by DND.....But they do not lay all that out do they..... Quote Existing HLMC Requirements Several of the derived HLMC requirements could be substantially amended if constraints were relaxed. The principal FWSAR HLMC performance requirements of range and response time in the SOR are not supported by the analysis used to derive them. If the SOR were to articulate the required SAR level of service and associated technical capabilities with respect to SAR load and the tasks of the crew members, then industry could analyse and submit mission scenarios that meet the requirements and are supported by the performance (range and speed) capabilities of their products. These particular HLMC requirements for range and response time could then be deleted from the SOR. The majority of the remaining HLMC requirements can be improved as documented in this report. Compliance with some requirements such as cockpit visibility and manoeuvrability would be difficult to assess as prescribed in the current SOR. For other requirements such as cargo compartment height, the requirement is not supported by the referenced documentation. More rigorous analytic techniques should be applied to determine required cabin dimensions. NRC has concluded the FWSAR aircraft must be equipped with a ramp. The specified minimum number of aircraft (fifteen) is not adequately supported. SO range of the aircraft is no longer important, neither is speed or response time.....SAR no longer has to rush....good to know.....the others are not tough requirements are they...... Quote Potential Additional HLMC Requirements It is recommended that several of the requirements presently listed as “Tier 1 rated” be upgraded to “High Level Mandatory Capabilities”. A small number of additional mandatory requirements are also recommended as additional mandatory requirements that any proposed capability must include. These are: Integration of SAR sensors such as electro-optical and infrared (EO/IR), search radar and night vision imaging systems (NVIS) Ability to: operate from short gravel runways and austere airfields; fly in icing conditions; operate in ground icing conditions where facilities exist Estimated life expectancy (ELE) of 30 years based on an average YFR that meets the capability and level of service requirements Ergonomic design of crew workstations Compliance with relevant civil operating rules (e.g. PBN and RVSM capability; equipped with TCAS and TAWS) as necessary to achieve required capabilities and level of service Inclusion of the SAR interagency frequency in the communications suite Notwithstanding the conclusion that the SOR as written is over-constrained, these are capabilities that must form a part of any solution NRC even went father than that they added their own requirements.....that DND did not mention or listed as a lower priority.....for you conservatives out there ....that's because DND just flies them....what do they know about what to ask for, and in what priority they might need it in...... Oh forgot.......this is what NRC says....A capability-based rather than platform-centric SOR would allow for more flexibility in developing proposed solutions. It is concluded that the SOR is over-constrained to the extent that very few compliant solutions are possible......it does not say that the requirements are written for the C-27J....they do mention that very few aircraft rate as contenders.....so there was more than one....."well fick me" Quote The quoted LOS is not currently supported by Government of Canada policy. It is, instead, what the Chief of the Air Staff (CAS) committed the CF to achieving in a letter to the National Search and Rescue Secretariat (NSS) (DND, 2002). The Department of National Defence (DND) Chief Review Services has also identified this policy gap (DND, 2008). Although it has been acknowledged that the existing LOS commitment is the best available substitute for a statement of policy, the absence of policy regarding LOS undermines the validity of the assumptions used to develop the SOR. SO before DND wrote the Specs.....there was no Government policy on what SAR was to provide to Canadians....so in absence of policy DND made one...stupid bastards.....what do they know.....Now our government is saying WOW, we didn't have a policy, how dare those DND guys write their own....lets make a new one....so we don't look bad.... it does not need to be to this level.....WHY not.....if the old planes are 30 years old and doing the job to DND standards, why can't a new aircraft do the same thing......Because very few aircraft can.....so we have to lower the standards.....so we can buy the cheaper aircraft....save money, save political faces, make it look like we are good and DND bad..... 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.
dre Posted December 13, 2016 Report Posted December 13, 2016 On 12/12/2016 at 9:25 AM, Army Guy said: Are you suggesting that only liberals pay taxes.....or that they are the only ones that work hard for their money....Not everyone shares the liberal train of thought here, in fact not all liberals think they way you do either, but screw them to, they do not count.. 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. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted December 13, 2016 Report Posted December 13, 2016 22 hours ago, Argus said: Not good ENOUGH when there are lives on the line. It would be supreme irony if Trudeau's plane goes down in the ocean or the far north and the new SAR planes aren't able to get to him... There are lives on the line for almost all government spending... from public transit to the military to healthcare. Nobody gets a blank check. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
eyeball Posted December 13, 2016 Report Posted December 13, 2016 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. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Army Guy Posted December 13, 2016 Author Report Posted December 13, 2016 2 hours ago, dre said: There are lives on the line for almost all government spending... from public transit to the military to healthcare. Nobody gets a blank check. this is bullshit.....everything is not made to the same standard, and as with anything you get what you pay for......buy a $20 life jacket, that will keep you afloat for 1 hour....or $400 for one that will never sink....which one do you buy for you family....both are life jackets , both do the same job, any one will do, when it comes down to safety inspection....hell take 2 of the good ones and a cheap one for the mother in law.... When it comes to safety, one has to spend a little more.....we do that when it comes to school buses, public transport etc...we demand it meets or exceeds a certain level of safety....regardless of cost.....one exception....the Canadian public does not get it's titties in a knot when it comes down to which brand of school bus is being purchased, nor does the Government make that choice for political reasons....That is reserved for the Military...cause them bastards can't be trusted....don't know why....just don't trust them shifty eyed some bitches..... 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 13, 2016 Author Report Posted December 13, 2016 2 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. Should tell that, to that young boy that froze to death on the northern ice pack, when SAR could not get to him for 2 days after he froze ...because of lack of serviceable SAR air craft... I wonder if that was what the PM told his parents...shit happens, get over it.....or did he say we sorry our SAR aircraft are over 30 years old, we should have purchased new ones 14 years ago....But we are retards.... 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 13, 2016 Report Posted December 13, 2016 3 hours ago, dre said: There are lives on the line for almost all government spending... from public transit to the military to healthcare. Nobody gets a blank check. No, there are not. Most government spending has little to do with safety. I'm all for taking intelligent risks, anyway, but not unnecessary ones which save a few bucks. As I said earlier, when we're casually spending hundreds of millions on buying a security council seat, or on the arts, and billions on pointless environmental policies, and billions more on bringing refugees to Canada we'll have to pay to support much of their lives, I don't see spending a little more for a faster, bigger, longer ranged aircraft to be a consequential added expense. 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
Omni Posted December 13, 2016 Report Posted December 13, 2016 8 minutes ago, Army Guy said: this is bullshit.....everything is not made to the same standard, and as with anything you get what you pay for......buy a $20 life jacket, that will keep you afloat for 1 hour....or $400 for one that will never sink....which one do you buy for you family....both are life jackets , both do the same job, any one will do, when it comes down to safety inspection....hell take 2 of the good ones and a cheap one for the mother in law.... When it comes to safety, one has to spend a little more.....we do that when it comes to school buses, public transport etc...we demand it meets or exceeds a certain level of safety....regardless of cost.....one exception....the Canadian public does not get it's titties in a knot when it comes down to which brand of school bus is being purchased, nor does the Government make that choice for political reasons....That is reserved for the Military...cause them bastards can't be trusted....don't know why....just don't trust them shifty eyed some bitches..... Aircraft have to meet a specified level of safety in order to be granted a certificate of airworthiness, no matter how fast they go or how big they are. Your life jacket reference just doesn't, dare I say it, float. Quote
Army Guy Posted December 13, 2016 Author Report Posted December 13, 2016 4 minutes ago, Argus said: No, there are not. Most government spending has little to do with safety. I'm all for taking intelligent risks, anyway, but not unnecessary ones which save a few bucks. As I said earlier, when we're casually spending hundreds of millions on buying a security council seat, or on the arts, and billions on pointless environmental policies, and billions more on bringing refugees to Canada we'll have to pay to support much of their lives, I don't see spending a little more for a faster, bigger, longer ranged aircraft to be a consequential added expense. 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...... Quote The SOR as written is over-constrained. Stated mission scenarios, preservation of the status quo regarding standby posture, CF crewing, and the four existing main operating bases may limit the potential number of solutions industry could propose. The stated objective of the SOR is that new FWSAR aircraft provide a level of service to Canadians equal to that currently provided; a level that is not currently defined in Government of Canada policy. An aircraft compliant with the SOR as written may not achieve the above objective. Shit they are even willing to say they are willing to lower the level of SAR service to make this happen, because the government has not specified or written a policy, and due to lack of policy DND wrote their own....hello, I guess you can't do that.....so the SOR does not have to live up to DND policy....there for those standards are void.... 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.
eyeball Posted December 13, 2016 Report Posted December 13, 2016 1 minute ago, Army Guy said: Should tell that, to that young boy that froze to death on the northern ice pack, when SAR could not get to him for 2 days after he froze ...because of lack of serviceable SAR air craft... I wonder if that was what the PM told his parents...shit happens, get over it.....or did he say we sorry our SAR aircraft are over 30 years old, we should have purchased new ones 14 years ago....But we are retards.... No I shouldn't and I doubt that's what Trudeau said, at all. I'm just as certain that if this had been a living boy on the ice they would have found a serviceable aircraft and he would have been rescued. Please provide any examples you have of SAR telling live victims and their families that the rescue is off due to the reasons you've cited. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Army Guy Posted December 13, 2016 Author Report Posted December 13, 2016 4 minutes ago, Omni said: Aircraft have to meet a specified level of safety in order to be granted a certificate of airworthiness, no matter how fast they go or how big they are. Your life jacket reference just doesn't, dare I say it, float. Are you saying that both aircraft are built to the same specs, that one is not safer, or built better, or uses better materials....what you are saying is they are indentical , only difference is price. 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.
Omni Posted December 13, 2016 Report Posted December 13, 2016 2 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Are you saying that both aircraft are built to the same specs, that one is not safer, or built better, or uses better materials....what you are saying is they are indentical , only difference is price. I am saying that equal standards are applied in granting an AWC. And of course they are not identical, one is larger and usually when you are talking a/c, the bigger ones cost more. Quote
Army Guy Posted December 13, 2016 Author Report Posted December 13, 2016 2 minutes ago, eyeball said: No I shouldn't and I doubt that's what Trudeau said, at all. I'm just as certain that if this had been a living boy on the ice they would have found a serviceable aircraft and he would have been rescued. Please provide any examples you have of SAR telling live victims and their families that the rescue is off due to the reasons you've cited. Buts that the way you just made it sound.....was it not Shit happens.....money was the difference of life and death in this case was it not..... Why don't you check that little tid bit in goggle, it was not that long ago....in fact it has been used as an example in this very competition..... 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 13, 2016 Author Report Posted December 13, 2016 17 minutes ago, Omni said: I am saying that equal standards are applied in granting an AWC. And of course they are not identical, one is larger and usually when you are talking a/c, the bigger ones cost more. SO what your saying is having a AWC does not make all the aircraft the same, what your saying is they meet the minimum standard.....and some aircraft are built beyond that, or have much more options included......don't have to be bigger to cost more.... 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.
Omni Posted December 13, 2016 Report Posted December 13, 2016 2 minutes ago, Army Guy said: SO what your saying is having a AWC does not make all the aircraft the same, what your saying is they meet the minimum standard.....and some aircraft are built beyond that, or have much more options included......don't have to be bigger to cost more.... That's correct, it doesn't make them all the same, it makes them all safe. Quote
Army Guy Posted December 13, 2016 Author Report Posted December 13, 2016 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. Quote planes are nearly half-a-century old. The age and consequent unreliability of the planes puts Canadian Forces personnel at risk, not to mention anyone in need of being rescued. 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 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 13, 2016 Author Report Posted December 13, 2016 26 minutes ago, Omni said: That's correct, it doesn't make them all the same, it makes them all safe. 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..... 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.