Army Guy Posted December 14, 2016 Author Report Posted December 14, 2016 9 minutes ago, Smallc said: 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. No - again, it says the standards are not defined. The C-295 is able to keep us at what we currently can do. You can't compare costing between countries. The evidence is clearly laid out for you if you read the NRC SOR, which I provided.........it states the reasons for re writing the specs, it does so by line item by line item.....Show me where it states as you have said it was DND writing the specs for the C-27J......which is not true....at all.... each standard is clearly defined....and when they changed them they stated why.......the main reason or reason that was used repeatedly was DND kept refering to Standards of SAR service...which were laided out, and written by DND, since DND does not write Government policy, all those requirements listed "to ensure this level of service is required " were denied....for no other reason other than DND wrote those specs.....That those specs are to high.... Yes your right ...unless we are talking F-35.....the contracts are almost the same while they may be off by a couple hundred thousand but they are close enough for comparison.... 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 14, 2016 Author Report Posted December 14, 2016 4 minutes ago, ?Impact said: 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. SO what you are saying is the Cons purchased this new SAR aircraft.....? or has the Liberals taken what was left them and went the opposite direction..... 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 14, 2016 Report Posted December 14, 2016 2 minutes ago, Army Guy said: SO what you are saying is the Cons purchased this new SAR aircraft.....? or has the Liberals taken what was left them and went the opposite direction..... If you think the cost between the two planes is comparable you better check the prices again. 40 million vs 28 million US last time I checked. Quote
Army Guy Posted December 14, 2016 Author Report Posted December 14, 2016 2 minutes ago, Omni said: If you think the cost between the two planes is comparable you better check the prices again. 40 million vs 28 million US last time I checked. Let see, $ 2.4 was the contract we signed on to was it not...........I just gave an example of Australia signing a contract for 1.4 bil for 10 C-27J.....you do the math.....the contracts are similar, with some exceptions....those exceptions are not major costs, or cost Bils... please explain it to me....and most of the sources I have checked do not list costing for the C298W, but rather the last version of C298.... 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.
Smallc Posted December 14, 2016 Report Posted December 14, 2016 24 minutes ago, Army Guy said: The evidence is clearly laid out for you if you read the NRC SOR, which I provided.........it states the reasons for re writing the specs, it does so by line item by line item.....Show me where it states as you have said it was DND writing the specs for the C-27J......which is not true....at all.... So you know more than the NRC - that's what you're saying. Quote
Smallc Posted December 14, 2016 Report Posted December 14, 2016 9 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Let see, $ 2.4 was the contract we signed on to was it not...........I just gave an example of Australia signing a contract for 1.4 bil for 10 C-27J And that example is meaningless. Quote
Wilber Posted December 14, 2016 Report Posted December 14, 2016 Just now, Smallc said: And that example is meaningless. Why? Our aircraft won't have these. Quote The 10 C-27J Spartans will be equipped with missile warning systems, electronic self-protection and battlefield armour allowing them to operate freely in high-threat environments. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
?Impact Posted December 14, 2016 Report Posted December 14, 2016 14 minutes ago, Army Guy said: SO what you are saying is the Cons purchased this new SAR aircraft.....? or has the Liberals taken what was left them and went the opposite direction..... I'm saying there is nothing partisan here. This is not about the Conservatives or Liberals, it is about getting new fixed wing SAR aircraft. The process was initiated during the Conservative government and completed during the Liberal one. Nothing shut down, no change of direction was made, no new magic incantation was recited. This is government working as it should. The ball was passed and there was no fumble. The criteria was set while the Conservatives were at the helm, the evaluation happened while the Liberals were at the helm. Final negotiations with the selected vendor occurred while the Liberals were in the drivers seat. If the Liberals decided after the evaluation that they didn't like the results then they could have pulled the plug and had a new RFP issued, that would be a change in the opposite direction. That clearly did not happen. The bigger issue would be if there were a change of government now, after the selection is made and then the contract was cancelled - again that is not happening. Quote
Wilber Posted December 14, 2016 Report Posted December 14, 2016 The C-27 also Quote uses common C-130J Hercules infrastructure and aircraft systems such as engines, avionics and the cargo handling systems. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Omni Posted December 14, 2016 Report Posted December 14, 2016 26 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Let see, $ 2.4 was the contract we signed on to was it not...........I just gave an example of Australia signing a contract for 1.4 bil for 10 C-27J.....you do the math.....the contracts are similar, with some exceptions....those exceptions are not major costs, or cost Bils... please explain it to me....and most of the sources I have checked do not list costing for the C298W, but rather the last version of C298.... I've done the math: the 295 unit cost is around 30% less than the 27. Quote
Army Guy Posted December 14, 2016 Author Report Posted December 14, 2016 26 minutes ago, Smallc said: So you know more than the NRC - that's what you're saying. where in the hell did I say that.......what I did say is the NRC SOR debunks most of your argument.....DND did not write the specs to suit the C-27J as you lead us to believe.....that is a myth.....it also explains in its SOR that because they are no clear government policy in writing, DND could not use the excuse that those items were required to maintain SAR quality of service or was required for SAR duties.....as there is no governmental policy ...just one set out by DND....it is funny that while they did throw out most of DND want list , they did mange to keep the ramp requirement.....wow.....read the NRC SOR again they spell it out for you in black and white....they also state that DND might have to move SAR bases closer to northern population centers to maintain it's range, and time to delivery of services, due to the lowered standards....that is pretty danming....oh one more thing the cost of those new bases not in the contract....pitty and here I thought it was clear, sunny ways yes indeed.... 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.
Smallc Posted December 14, 2016 Report Posted December 14, 2016 47 minutes ago, Wilber said: Why? Our aircraft won't have these. Because you can't compare purchases between jurisdictions. Different accounting. Quote
Army Guy Posted December 14, 2016 Author Report Posted December 14, 2016 17 minutes ago, Omni said: I've done the math: the 295 unit cost is around 30% less than the 27. you might give a us a source and where you got your prices..... I used the prices according to the Australian contract..... even if you double the contract adjusted for inflation from 2012 you'd only be looking at 400 million more....than already spent....subtract the gains made from training, and logistics because they share a lot of the same parts as the C-130J and over 33 years that 400 million is not as bad as you make it out to be...... 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.
Wilber Posted December 14, 2016 Report Posted December 14, 2016 9 minutes ago, Smallc said: Because you can't compare purchases between jurisdictions. Different accounting. Explain. Different accounting is a political issue everywhere. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Omni Posted December 14, 2016 Report Posted December 14, 2016 27 minutes ago, Army Guy said: you might give a us a source and where you got your prices..... I used the prices according to the Australian contract..... even if you double the contract adjusted for inflation from 2012 you'd only be looking at 400 million more....than already spent....subtract the gains made from training, and logistics because they share a lot of the same parts as the C-130J and over 33 years that 400 million is not as bad as you make it out to be...... Whichever plane you buy it has to be maintained which can be accounted various ways (ala the F 35 fiasco) however there is a substantial difference in the unit costs right off the bat. Quote
Smallc Posted December 14, 2016 Report Posted December 14, 2016 33 minutes ago, Wilber said: Explain. Different accounting is a political issue everywhere. You can't compare what we paid to what Australia paid. We may include different things in a purchase than they do. Quote
The_Squid Posted December 14, 2016 Report Posted December 14, 2016 4 hours ago, Army Guy said: 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.... So this new SAR plane would save people like this kid. Great! Oh wait... except it's the Liberals.... boo hisss... we need better planes!! Quote
Army Guy Posted December 15, 2016 Author Report Posted December 15, 2016 20 hours ago, Smallc said: You can't compare what we paid to what Australia paid. We may include different things in a purchase than they do. Have you even gone to see what the contract consists of ....NO you have not....what you have done is simple discounted because it does not support your argument.....and even if it did not include all the SAR sensors we are looking for ....those will not double the costs as you were saying it would......You also discount or brush aside all that comes with the C-27J, such as common spares, with the C-130J which over the course of 33 years....would be in the hundreds of millions...when you take a look at warehouse space, training requirements for both pilots, crew and ground crew....to mention a few... 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 15, 2016 Author Report Posted December 15, 2016 20 hours ago, Omni said: Whichever plane you buy it has to be maintained which can be accounted various ways (ala the F 35 fiasco) however there is a substantial difference in the unit costs right off the bat. What you mean to say is this project has not been costed to 40 years, but rather only 33 years...which we have not seen so how can we simple say the C295W is cheaper....have you seen the costing...and comparison...do you have a source for that info.....I did not think so....So how can you make that claim..... Unit costs on their own do not tell the whole tale do they......we need to see the cost comparison for the full 33 years, and that info has not been released yet has it ? Also it does not include some of the NRC recommendations such as new SAR bases closer to the north, which was used to exclude the speed and range capabilities.....those are not going to be cheap.... 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 15, 2016 Author Report Posted December 15, 2016 18 hours ago, The_Squid said: So this new SAR plane would save people like this kid. Great! Oh wait... except it's the Liberals.... boo hisss... we need better planes!! I guess Mongolia does not have a debating team does it, which would account for your fantastic debating technique, if that's what you call it........something like my dad can kick your dads ass anytime na na na....."come on" bring something to the table.....anything.... 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 15, 2016 Report Posted December 15, 2016 9 minutes ago, Army Guy said: What you mean to say is this project has not been costed to 40 years, but rather only 33 years...which we have not seen so how can we simple say the C295W is cheaper....have you seen the costing...and comparison...do you have a source for that info.....I did not think so....So how can you make that claim..... Unit costs on their own do not tell the whole tale do they......we need to see the cost comparison for the full 33 years, and that info has not been released yet has it ? Also it does not include some of the NRC recommendations such as new SAR bases closer to the north, which was used to exclude the speed and range capabilities.....those are not going to be cheap.... It sounds like what you are trying to say now is that the government didn't look at the costing and considered that into their decision. Sounds like you have gone in a circle and are now saying that costing is the most important aspect. I imagine the government looked at the costing for all contenders. We just haven;t seen all the numbers. Quote
Army Guy Posted December 15, 2016 Author Report Posted December 15, 2016 1 minute ago, Omni said: It sounds like what you are trying to say now is that the government didn't look at the costing and considered that into their decision. Sounds like you have gone in a circle and are now saying that costing is the most important aspect. I imagine the government looked at the costing for all contenders. We just haven;t seen all the numbers. No what I have been saying all along was this C295 purchase was one based of costs, and political choice...capabilities had nothing to do with it....My reference to costing was in responding to your and Smallc stating that the C-27J was double the price....which when we do the math that is not true...... Yes we do have a SAR aircraft being purchased , but it does not mean it was the better choice... 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 15, 2016 Report Posted December 15, 2016 3 minutes ago, Army Guy said: No what I have been saying all along was this C295 purchase was one based of costs, and political choice...capabilities had nothing to do with it....My reference to costing was in responding to your and Smallc stating that the C-27J was double the price....which when we do the math that is not true...... Yes we do have a SAR aircraft being purchased , but it does not mean it was the better choice... The capabilities of the 295 meet the requirements as laid out, and costs significantly less. I never said half the price. But as I said, go look up the unit purchase price and you will begin to get the picture. Quote
The_Squid Posted December 15, 2016 Report Posted December 15, 2016 20 minutes ago, Army Guy said: I guess Mongolia does not have a debating team does it, which would account for your fantastic debating technique, if that's what you call it........something like my dad can kick your dads ass anytime na na na....."come on" bring something to the table.....anything.... These planes are perfectly capable... you have said it before. Your argument simply makes no sense. Quote
Smallc Posted December 15, 2016 Report Posted December 15, 2016 38 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Have you even gone to see what the contract consists of ....NO you have not....what you have done is simple discounted because it does not support your argument.....and even if it did not include all the SAR sensors we are looking for ....those will not double the costs as you were saying it would......You also discount or brush aside all that comes with the C-27J, such as common spares, with the C-130J which over the course of 33 years....would be in the hundreds of millions...when you take a look at warehouse space, training requirements for both pilots, crew and ground crew....to mention a few... Are you saying you have information the procurement department doesn't? Quote
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.