Liberals purchase new SAR aircraft.

[Army Guy]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

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.

I can not find a unit price for the new C295W, with all the sar sensors ......as that price has not been released yet.....I have asked you for a source but all I got was crickets....And like I said the per unit price does not tell the whole tale does it....offsets , other considerations can still reflect on end price of contract.....

The requirements had to be rewritten for the C295....but no red flag here.... 

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I can not find a unit price for the new C295W, with all the sar sensors ......as that price has not been released yet.....I have asked you for a source but all I got was crickets....And like I said the per unit price does not tell the whole tale does it....offsets , other considerations can still reflect on end price of contract.....

The requirements had to be rewritten for the C295....but no red flag here.... 

The requirements had to be rewritten so they were not specific to the C 27.

http://planes.axlegeeks.com/compare/132-158/Airbus-C295-vs-Alenia-C-27J-Spartan

[The_Squid]

5 minutes ago, Omni said:

The requirements had to be rewritten so they were not specific to the C 27.

http://planes.axlegeeks.com/compare/132-158/Airbus-C295-vs-Alenia-C-27J-Spartan

Exactly...  the military wanted C27s and C27s only....   the government seemed to want a competitive process.   

I have no preference for a particular plane.  They both would have done the job, but I want tax dollars spent wisely, unlike some "conservatives" here on the site.

[Army Guy]

3 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Are you saying you have information the procurement department doesn't? 

what I am saying is this, you have not read the existing NRC SOR , had you read it, you would have changed your argument....because the NRC SOR counters everything in your augment....

As to what info PWSG has or has not used , no one knows as it has not been released has it....The liberals have already used political gains to choose purchases of military equip in their recent history.......Did Justin have full access to the entire F-35 file before he was PM .....when he came out and said we will not buy the F-35 .... not even with a competition....The C-27J already had the stench of the CONS all over it.....the C295 never won anything....it was decided long before the competition was completed....

[Army Guy]

10 minutes ago, Omni said:

The requirements had to be rewritten so they were not specific to the C 27.

http://planes.axlegeeks.com/compare/132-158/Airbus-C295-vs-Alenia-C-27J-Spartan

Another guy that does not read all the posts....this was Smallc statement as well.....And it is bullshit.....here is what the NRC say about why the SOR is rewrriten...I provided you with the link of the NRC SOR, it lists all the reasons for all the changes made to DND SOR .....

Note "no where" does it state that DND SOR was written directly to the C-27J....there were more than 1 aircraft that meet DND's SOR.....of course you'd already know that if you had read the NRC SOR....

 

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.  

 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/fixed-wing-search-rescue-aircraft-2010.page

Edited December 15, 2016 by Army Guy

[Omni]

10 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Another guy that does not read all the posts....this was Smallc statement as well.....And it is bullshit.....here is what the NRC say about why the SOR is rewrriten...
 

 

A principal recommendation is that the SOR be amended to better reflect a capability-based requirements rationale rather than a platform-centric approach. 

NRC recommends that the FWSAR SOR be amended in light of the review documented herein.

[Army Guy]

7 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

Exactly...  the military wanted C27s and C27s only....   the government seemed to want a competitive process.   

I have no preference for a particular plane.  They both would have done the job, but I want tax dollars spent wisely, unlike some "conservatives" here on the site.

DND did have a preference , they made no attempt to cover that up.....they had access to the aircraft before and during the testing process....they put all the aircraft through their paces....and stated to the public and in their reports back to PWSG and the government they preferred the C-27J, it meet or exceeded all of its requirements....These are the guys that will be using the aircraft and it's sensors on a daily basis.....their recommendation was over turned, for political reasons.....as it always is.....

Canada has a history of keeping it's military equipment well past it due date, at the cost of untold millions in extra maintence and repairs, buying parts not made any more....to deceive the public into thinking they are getting the best bang for their buck.....keep in mind the Buffalo is over "50 years old"...... this project is over 14 years in the making.....how can we blame DND for wanting to spend a few extra dollars on the next one....50 years old.....with that in mind ...may be meeting the standard , was not good enough.....but you don't see that.....

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

their recommendation was over turned, for political reasons.

What operational requirements are the selected aircraft not meeting? What political reasons was the recommendation overturned for?

[Army Guy]

11 minutes ago, Omni said:

A principal recommendation is that the SOR be amended to better reflect a capability-based requirements rationale rather than a platform-centric approach. 

NRC recommends that the FWSAR SOR be amended in light of the review documented herein.

Nice try lets put all of that into context shall me......listed below is the para found under RECOMENDATIONS.....it goes on to put your statement into context.....It does not ref to the C-27J.....but rather Capabilites already within DND SAR fleet.....last time I checked , no C-27J......I guess you glossed over the para above that which goes on to explain the resons why the NRC SOR was commissioned.....

Quote

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.

 

[Omni]

Yhe context is quite clear. They wanted the SOR to be written to reflect required capabilities rather than a specific platform.

[Army Guy]

10 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

What operational requirements are the selected aircraft not meeting? What political reasons was the recommendation overturned for?

Good question the NRC SOR list dozens of them and the reasons they are not valid....such as cabin height, speed, range, NRC even went as far to dismiss that current levels of SAR service that DND wrote the policy on were not valid because the Government has not written a policy yet.....So any reasons list as to keep current levels of service valid...are omitted from the SOR....that services levels could or would be down graded to allow for additional aircraft to compete.....meaning it now forces the government to write a new policy on Service levels to Canadians which are lower than what DND currently has.....

You and I know both regardless of which government is serving they are not going to make public why this choice....but follow the project, conns screw it up royally.....making the C-27J an aircraft with to be avoided .....why pick it....why not stay away from it..... 

[Army Guy]

4 minutes ago, Omni said:

Yhe context is quite clear. They wanted the SOR to be written to reflect required capabilities rather than a specific platform.

Sure, it's your Dime....that's why they mention current serving SAR fleet aircraft....and that is why the para above that statement the one I provided lists more reasons that have nothing to do with the C-27J.....this is simple reading comprehension....

 

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.  

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.

 

 

[Smallc]

12 minutes ago, Omni said:

Yhe context is quite clear. They wanted the SOR to be written to reflect required capabilities rather than a specific platform.

He doesn't get that - such a statement is code for, they wrote it to favour the C-27J, and they shouldn't have. 

Edited December 15, 2016 by Smallc

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Smallc said:

He doesn't get that - such a statement is code for, they wrote it  to favour the C-27J, and they shouldn't have. 

Since it is "our dime" I'm glad the government got that.

[Smallc]

Just now, Omni said:

Since it is "our dime" I'm glad the government got that.

Agreed.  The plane will do fine for a long time.  It's not like Airbus is really to this.

[Army Guy]

4 minutes ago, Smallc said:

He doesn't get that - such a statement is code for, they wrote it  to favour the C-27J, and they shouldn't have. 

Yes now were talking about a secret code, only made available to liberals.....got it, should of know better.....never did get that decoder ring......or may be DND used the examples of aircraft already in service to many times, and this is NRC telling them "The capabilities required should not refer explicitly to those provided by existing DND FWSAR fleets"  maybe there is no code, no aliens, no misguided sentences, maybe it is as it is written....what do I know I never got the code.....

[Army Guy]

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

Since it is "our dime" I'm glad the government got that.

what does that even mean.....that only those that agree with your statements can use that It's our dime excuse.....and those that disagree, well WTF do they know, shit do they even pay taxes ? I get it only your opinion counts here....not other opinions, nor the military, nor any one else....

 

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

what does that even mean.....that only those that agree with your statements can use that It's our dime excuse.....and those that disagree, well WTF do they know, shit do they even pay taxes ? I get it only your opinion counts here....not other opinions, nor the military, nor any one else....

 

I agree with the idea of independent oversight for such transactions. There was in this case and it did what it was supposed to do. We finally have planes ordered and we saved money.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Omni

[?Impact]

Perhaps I am just stupid, but I keep asking for specific requirements and all I get back are statements written way back in 2010 from Public Works  saying essentially how to clean up an earlier DOD statement of requirement to bring it out to industry in a fair competition. Is not the whole purpose of public procurement to be open and transparent, or are we saying that is not what we want.

Let me ask again. What operational requirements are not being met by the aircraft selected?

[Army Guy]

5 minutes ago, Omni said:

I agree with the idea of independent oversight for such transactions. There was in this case and it did what it was supposed to do. We finally have planes ordered and we saved money.

WOW....sounds like a liberal politician response....had nothing to do with the question I asked....reminds me ....squirrel .....what were we talking about....

[Army Guy]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

Perhaps I am just stupid, but I keep asking for specific requirements and all I get back are statements written way back in 2010 from Public Works  saying essentially how to clean up an earlier DOD statement of requirement to bring it out to industry in a fair competition. Is not the whole purpose of public procurement to be open and transparent, or are we saying that is not what we want.

Let me ask again. What operational requirements are not being met by the aircraft selected?

All of them that were re written, .........the DND SOR had more than one aircraft that could have been included....

[?Impact]

Again, a complete non-answer.

What specific operational requirements are not being met by the new aircraft?

[Omni]

13 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

WOW....sounds like a liberal politician response....had nothing to do with the question I asked....reminds me ....squirrel .....what were we talking about....

I think we were talking about how government acquisition of SAR aircraft is done. Did you lose track?

[Rue]

I found this at http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?116683-EADS-C295-vs-Alenia-C-27J is it of any help to anyone when discussing this issue? I defer to Derek or Army Guy or the rest of yooz.

Comparing C295 vs. C-27J as tactical transport aircraft
We'll try to asses the main contenders in the segment of intratheater airlifters on the base of technical facts.

1. CABIN

Length (m): C295 has 15.73 vs. C-27J has 10.53 --> C295 has the best mark
Floor Area (m2): C295 has 37.12 vs. C-27J has 25.8 --> C295 has the best mark
Volume (m3): C295 has 64 vs. C-27J has 58 --> C295 has the best mark
Troops: C295 has 71 vs. C-27J has 46 --> C295 has the best mark
Paratroops: C295 has 50 vs. C-27J has 32 --> C295 has the best mark
Pallets (88" x 108"): C295 has 5 vs. C-27J has 3 --> C295 has the best mark
Stretchers: C295 has 24 vs. C-27J has 18 --> C295 has the best mark
Roller System: C295 has 4 row (like C-130) vs. C-27J has 3 --> C295 has the best mark

2. PERFORMANCE

Range (nm): C295 has 3000 vs. C-27J has 3000 --> Equal marks
Runway required (ft / 5000kg / 1000nm): C295 has 2290 vs C-27J has 2750 --> C295 has the best mark, it has better STOL capability.
Trips needed for deployment of Rapid Reaction Force - unpaved runway (800 troops / 200 t in 48h): C295 has 37 vs. C-27J has 89 --> C295 has the best mark
Soft Runway Capability (CBR): C295 has 2 vs. C-27J has 4 --> C295 has the best mark
Payload range (t): C295 has 9 vs. C-27J has 9 --> Equal marks
Fuel consumption (max. ferry range / litre): C295 has 7700 vs. C-27J has 12300 --> C295 has the best mark, it offers fuel savings and therefore cost savings.
Endurance: C295 has 12 hours vs. C-27J has 10 --> C295 has the best mark, it offers 2 hours more search and rescue time.
MMH/FH: C295 has 1.14 vs. C-27J has > 7 --> C295 has the best mark
FAA Certified: C295 YES vs. C-27J NO --> C295 is the only fully certified
Maritime proven: C295 (and CN235) is used in more than 12 countries vs. C-27J not one--> C295 is the clear winner.

Conclusion:
According to the previous technical data, I think that is clear that C295 is superior than C-27J.


Beyond these facts, the superior multi-role C295 is proven in:

- Troop / paratrooper transport
- Cargo (pallets / equipment)
- Medical evacuation
- SAR
- Maritime patrol
- Passengers

The C295 multi-functionality makes it the superior choice as intratheater transport aircraft. No other tactical airlifter in its category can claim its clear advantages and versatility.

Important information/facts:

What is about the system prize and the maintenance costs in general between this both types?
General: The history shows, that the G-222 / C/27 Spartan had difficulties. It was a high manitnance aircraft. All users had enormous problems to keep them in service. I remember to hear that the C-27 is the ideal transport aircraft for airshows, but not for the real tasks.

Further information:
The C295 offers the best value for users, with lower acquisition and direct operating costs than any other aircraft in its category. The C295 is cheaper to purchase, maintain and operate than the C-27J. The C-27J’s fuel and maintenance needs give it operational costs that are over 60% more expensive than the C295’s.
The Spartan burnt much more fuel per hour than the C295 (as much as 60 per cent more), which meant the C295 could save as much as $300 million on fuel over the 30-year lifespan of a 10-aircraft fleet.

A greater endurance of 12 hours allows the aircrew to remain on-scene longer, collect more information, support other assets, and track targets for longer periods of time.

The C295 has more modern aerodynamics and non-hydraulic flight controls than the C-27J Spartan.

It's the only two-engine aircraft in its class that can carry five pallets, providing additional flexibility for intra-theater lift, with a cargo cabin that is the largest of any medium-sized military transport. The C295 can hold a "Hummer" wheeled vehicle with free space to spare. Since C295 has a longer fuselage it can carry more cargo pallets than the C-27J. C295 comes with a nifty pallet loading system, and is cheaper to maintain and fly.


Note: The Airbus CN-235MSP (HC-144A’s MSP) like the C295MPA is approximately 90 percent similar to the systems found on the HC-130H and HC-130J Long Range Surveillance aircraft, enabling commonality in training and operation.

The C295 has seen wide operational service, including missions to support coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US Army originally wanted the C295.

Note: The USAF had bought some C-27/G-222 in the eighties, and they were mothballed, because of diverse and huge technical problems. The same occurs in other air forces.

C295's ease of maintenance and low life cycle cost, as well as its operational capabilities represent a clear advantage over any other competitor.

Is this aircraft the Royal Australian Air Force and what the Royal Canadian Air Force need?

Gerardo Señoráns Barcala

Edited December 15, 2016 by Rue

[The_Squid]

Liberals chose the C295, therefor it sucks.