Liberals purchase new SAR aircraft.

[Derek 2.0]

25 minutes ago, Smallc said:

We wouldn't have been able to buy 16 C-27J within the budget - that's the flaw in your logic.  They also cost twice (!) as much to fly.

Source?

[Smallc]

All it means is that I linked to the wrong page: 

 

http://www.c-27j.ca/c-27j-spartan/right-sized/speed,-endurance-and-range/short-takeoff-and-landings

 

The figure from airbus is for complete operations - loaded landing and takeoff.  I was talking about landing distance only.   You were talking about something else.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

Just now, Smallc said:

All it means is that I linked to the wrong page: 

 

http://www.c-27j.ca/c-27j-spartan/right-sized/speed,-endurance-and-range/short-takeoff-and-landings

 

No, it means you're countering figures provided by Airbus, on an Airbus website, with figures from "airvectors.net"......

[Smallc]

Oh, and:

Finally, Airbus DS is certifying the C295 for “Extreme STOL” (short takeoff and landing) operations in wartime or during special operations. Morell said that no flight control system modifications are involved. Rather, “we can be more aggressive at the margins–stall speeds and flap utilization,” he explained. The scheme will provide takeoff runs of well under 500 meters. 

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-02-18/adaptations-bring-cn235/c295-sales-rewards-airbus

[Argus]

37 minutes ago, Smallc said:

We wouldn't have been able to buy 16 C-27J within the budget - that's the flaw in your logic.  They also cost twice (!) as much to fly.

Don't care. Buy them.

[Derek 2.0]

1 minute ago, Smallc said:

Oh, and:

Finally, Airbus DS is certifying the C295 for “Extreme STOL” (short takeoff and landing) operations in wartime or during special operations. Morell said that no flight control system modifications are involved. Rather, “we can be more aggressive at the margins–stall speeds and flap utilization,” he explained. The scheme will provide takeoff runs of well under 500 meters. 

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-02-18/adaptations-bring-cn235/c295-sales-rewards-airbus

 

So?

[Smallc]

Just now, Argus said:

Don't care. Buy them.

Some conservative.

We don't need them.

[poochy]

6 hours ago, Smallc said:

As for the last part of your post - civilian oversight of the military is seen as crucial in all western democracies, for a very good reason.  The public purse and the public well being must be protected.

You know what, despite having real world reason to care, idk which aircraft is truly the best, but the idea that you think this government is mostly worried about the "purse", is ludicrous, insane, bat**** crazy.

[Smallc]

1 minute ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

So?

Landing roll (ISA, S/L):

1,050 ft.

 

http://www.c295.ca/c295-canadian-sar/specifications/

Edited December 10, 2016 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Just now, poochy said:

You know what, despite having real world reason to care, idk which aircraft is truly the best, but the idea that you think this government is mostly worried about the "purse", is ludicrous, insane, bat**** crazy.

I think every government is worried about the public purse.  It's often for selfish reasons.

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Some conservative.

We don't need them.

I regard certain governmental tasks/jobs as, for want of a better term "core". You maximize your abilities with those core tasks, and if that means spending a little more to buy an aircraft with twice the range, then you do so. SAR is a core job. We don't need them? Says who? This is Canada. An aircraft with a longer range and higher payload would seem to have all kinds of better options in an emergency than others.

By the way, more money for the arts is not "core" but the Liberals found hundreds of millions for the arts regardless.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

Just now, Argus said:

I regard certain governmental tasks/jobs as, for want of a better term "core". You maximize your abilities with those core tasks, and if that means spending a little more to buy an aircraft with twice the range, then you do so. SAR is a core job. We don't need them? Says who? This is Canada. An aircraft with a longer range and higher payload would seem to have all kinds of better options in an emergency than others.

It might seem to, but if we only have 10 instead of 15, ~200km doesn't seem all that important.

[Argus]

3 minutes ago, Smallc said:

It might seem to, but if we only have 10 instead of 15, ~200km doesn't seem all that important.

There is no need to cheap out on these. if the Liberals can find hundreds of millions of dollars more for the CBC and arts council and other arty programs and billions of dollars to import tens of thousands of Syrian refugees it can find money for additional SAR resources.  And it's not 200 km. My understanding is the hercules has double the range.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

There is no need to cheap out on these. if the Liberals can find hundreds of millions of dollars more for the CBC and arts council and other arty programs and billions of dollars to import tens of thousands of Syrian refugees it can find money for additional SAR resources.  And it's not 200 km. My understanding is the hercules has double the range.

That might be relevant, if Lockheed Martin had submitted a bid.  They didn't.

[Derek 2.0]

3 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Landing roll (ISA, S/L):

1,050 ft. http://www.c295.ca/c295-canadian-sar/specifications/

Whit what sized load?

[Smallc]

Lol, have a nice day.

[Argus]

Just now, Smallc said:

That might be relevant, if Lockheed Martin had submitted a bid.  They didn't.

If Lockheed Martin didn't submit a bid it was because they were told not to, or because the specifications were written in such a way as to prevent them from bidding.

[Derek 2.0]

4 minutes ago, Smallc said:

It might seem to, but if we only have 10 instead of 15, ~200km doesn't seem all that important.

 

You've yet to cite such a difference in both purchase and operating costs......do you have a source or are you making up more facts?

[Smallc]

No, apparently they were throwing a hissy fit.

[Smallc]

1 minute ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

You've yet to cite such a difference in both purchase and operating costs......do you have a source or are you making up more facts?

I already quoted the source - Airbus.  If Leonardo has other information, they're free to release it.

[Derek 2.0]

Just now, Argus said:

If Lockheed Martin didn't submit a bid it was because they were told not to, or because the specifications were written in such a way as to prevent them from bidding.

 

Lockheed Martin knew the fix was in and didn't bother wasting their time........and money, as it costs a fortune to for said companies to submit bids.

[poochy]

2 minutes ago, Smallc said:

I think every government is worried about the public purse.  It's often for selfish reasons.

Crazy. But as the F35 debacle indicates, they are willing to spend as little as they can get away with on the military, but they will spend like drunken sailors on shore leave for all sorts of boutique causes, in typical liberal fashion, the military is something we just can't afford.

[Derek 2.0]

2 minutes ago, Smallc said:

I already quoted the source - Airbus.  If Leonardo has other information, they're free to release it.

 

You quoted someone from Airbus's marketing department.......that claims their aircraft is better then the competition 

Edited December 10, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[Derek 2.0]

2 minutes ago, Smallc said:

No, apparently they were throwing a hissy fit.

 

Source?

[poochy]

2 minutes ago, Smallc said:

No, apparently they were throwing a hissy fit.

Right because the absolute lies this government is telling about the need for another 5 years before choosing an actual F18 replacement, that's mature, honest discussion.