Liberals purchase new SAR aircraft.

[Smallc]

25 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

Source?

Army Guy - further up the thread.  I've also read it somewhere else.

 

In reality, it's because the C-130 costs twice as much as even the C-27 to operate.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Smallc

[Smallc]

24 minutes ago, poochy said:

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.

I've spoken against the direction we're going on fighters several times.

[Smallc]

Also, in case everyone forgot - we will still have C-130H and C-130J aircraft available after this.  SAR will not be their primary mission, but they're always available.

[Derek 2.0]

6 minutes ago, Smallc said:

, it's because the C-130 costs twice as much as even the C-27 to operate.

 

Sure, but offers far more capability, likewise, operational costs would be mitigated by cutting two aircraft types from the inventory and the reduction in costs found with the C-130J verses older models we currently operate.

 

9 minutes ago, Smallc said:

we will still have C-130H and C-130J aircraft available after this.  SAR will not be their primary mission, but they're always available.

 

Who says we will have the C-130H after the C-295 has fully been delivered? From what I understand, the four current squadrons will see the reduced number of C-295 divided up among themselves, who will be flying the legacy Hercs, that themselves are aging rapidly.......  The aircraft don't fly and fix themselves...............

[bush_cheney2004]

43 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

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.

 

Indeed....and not just for this specific procurement by the Trudeau regime:

Quote

...Lockheed Martin’s lack of participation in the competition is said to have been in reaction to the saga revolving around Canada’s recent backing out of the F-35 program to launch a new procurement competition.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/rescue-required-canadas-searchandrescue-aircraft-program-03350/

 

[Omni]

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Indeed....and not just for this specific procurement by the Trudeau regime:

 

Oh, so the hissy fit theory is correct.

[Wilber]

2 hours 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

The stall speed is the stall speed, if they aren't modifying the aircraft, they are just reducing the safety margins. Understandable because your link says the certification (whatever that means) will be for wartime and special operations. Not SAR.

[Smallc]

22 minutes ago, Wilber said:

The stall speed is the stall speed, if they aren't modifying the aircraft, they are just reducing the safety margins. Understandable because your link says the certification (whatever that means) will be for wartime and special operations. Not SAR.

Meaning that the aircraft is capable of more - that's the point.  The other link shows that it takes less space to land than the C-27, but more to take off.

[Derek 2.0]

9 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Meaning that the aircraft is capable of more - that's the point.

 

Or it means: "hold my beer and watch this"..............has the aircraft been certified as such yet, you cite a nearly year old article?

[Wilber]

17 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Meaning that the aircraft is capable of more - that's the point.  The other link shows that it takes less space to land than the C-27, but more to take off.

Every aircraft is capable of more, that's why there are safety margins. By reducing takeoff and approach speeds and using more flap, they can increase STOL performance but in the event of an engine failure, the aircraft may not have enough speed and be carrying too much drag to stay airborne. That is why they state this is for wartime and special operations.

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, The_Squid said:

It is very clear you're not any sort of expert...  aeronautical or math...

5400km is the ferry range for the C295

5800km for the C27J

 

 

What does ferry range have to do with anything....that's with no load or cargo.....not much good on a SAR call without no load is it....put some weight in the plane and you'll see the range drops a lot......what is the range with max payload anyways......

 

Neither are you or smallc but it has not stopped the both of you.....but once again your sticking up for however choose this plane because they can do no wrong..... over the experts with in DND, and the only point you can come up with is price.....but how can be...All the aircraft have not been priced out to 40 years.....and hear I thought that was law....or have the liberals changed that......

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, Smallc said:

Army Guy - further up the thread.  I've also read it somewhere else.

 

In reality, it's because the C-130 costs twice as much as even the C-27 to operate.

Lockheed did original submit a modified C-130J, maybe something similar to the US coast Guard variant, LH said it would drop out of the race due to unfair purchasing practices of the Canadian government .....IE the F-35 be eliminated with out due process.....or competition.....not dealing with a nation that has unfair or a dishonest purchasing program is not having a hissy fit it is called good business.....

And in reality it would have meant less cost due to parts, sims, training, foot print, logistics tail, but shit.....what does the military know.....nothing because nobody has seen the 40 year forecast yet......the proof is in the proof baby......That and it is law is it not......once again it looks like a fast track or end round by the liberals trying to close files and promises....without doing it the right way......you know what i'm talking about , most liberals cried and cried , even kicking their feet....because the Cons had not produced the right numbers.....Numbers designed to scare the public.......but now it's OK....showing the 40 year plan was stupid.....IT's law baby show us the numbers......

Edited December 11, 2016 by Army Guy

[Smallc]

Just now, Army Guy said:

Lockheed did original submit a modified C-130J, maybe something similar to the US coast Guard variant, LH said it would drop out of the race due to unfair purchasing practices of the Canadian government .....IE the F-35 be eliminated with out due process.....or competition.....

That actually never happened - they talked about it, but never submitted a bid.  Leonardo and Airbus explained it quite simply - The C-130J is too expensive and too expensive to operate to be affordable in any numbers for this competition.

2 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

And in reality it would have meant less cost due to parts, sims, training, foot print, logistics tail, but shit.....what does the military know.....nothing because nobody has seen the 40 year forecast yet......the proof is in the proof baby......That and it is law is it not......once again it looks like a fast track or end round by the liberals trying to close files and promises....without doing it the right way......you know what i'm talking about , most liberals cried and cried , even kicking their feet....because the Cons had not produced the right numbers.....Numbers designed to scare the public.......but now it's OK....showing the 40 year plan was stupid.....IT's law baby show us the numbers......

What we do know is that the C-295 was the least expensive to purchase and support over 20 years.  If yo have other numbers, feel free to share them.

[Army Guy]

14 minutes ago, Smallc said:

That actually never happened - they talked about it, but never submitted a bid.  Leonardo and Airbus explained it quite simply - The C-130J is too expensive and too expensive to operate to be affordable in any numbers for this competition.

What we do know is that the C-295 was the least expensive to purchase and support over 20 years.  If yo have other numbers, feel free to share them.

So it did happen LH did put it on the table.....then with drew it.....we have been operating C-130H on the east coast and sometimes in the west for years.....and after 14 years it is to expensive.....enough so to move the project to completion not really .....well not for 14 years any ways......

You know as well as I do no one from the public has seen the 40 year forecast......you know the one that is legally required for all major purchases.....and if you have one for 20 years I have not seen that either.....atleast one that compares all the aircraft that made a bid...

 

Edited December 11, 2016 by Army Guy

[Omni]

37 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

What does ferry range have to do with anything....that's with no load or cargo.....not much good on a SAR call without no load is it....put some weight in the plane and you'll see the range drops a lot......what is the range with max payload anyways......

 

Neither are you or smallc but it has not stopped the both of you.....but once again your sticking up for however choose this plane because they can do no wrong..... over the experts with in DND, and the only point you can come up with is price.....but how can be...All the aircraft have not been priced out to 40 years.....and hear I thought that was law....or have the liberals changed that......

I think you will find any plane you want to discuss will lose range as you load it up. 

[Smallc]

11 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

So it did happen LH did put it on the table.....then with drew it.

No - that never happened.  

[Smallc]

According to figures from the Ohio Air National Guard, whose crews fly the C-27Js, the aircraft cost about $2,100 per hour to fly, as compared with about $7,000 for the C-130 and more than $9,000 for a Chinook.

http://www.stripes.com/news/c-27j-transport-aircraft-on-chopping-block-nine-months-after-debut-1.175223

 

[Derek 2.0]

11 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

we have been operating C-130H on the east coast and sometimes in the west for years.....and after 14 years it is to expensive.....enough so to move the project to completion not really .....well not for 14 years any ways.....

Exactly, 3 of our 4 FWSAR squadrons operated the C-130 for sometime.......the C-130J is both more capable and cheaper to operate then the legacy models.

 

Smallc is citing salesmen from the makers of the other aircraft, though I have no doubt said aircraft are cheaper to purchase and operate then a Herc, the are also far less capable.........hence the Liberals have not only reduced the number of aircraft dedicated to FWSAR, but have also purchased a far less capable aircraft when contrasted with the majority (legacy) Herc fleet we already operate........and far less capable then the latest model Hercs (what we also operate in the transport role) we should have bought.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Smallc said:

According to figures from the Ohio Air National Guard, whose crews fly the C-27Js, the aircraft cost about $2,100 per hour to fly, as compared with about $7,000 for the C-130 and more than $9,000 for a Chinook.

 

Yeah, and those are real U.S. dollars  !!    I wonder if Canada consulted with the the Ohio ANG ?

[Smallc]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

Yeah, and those are real U.S. dollars  !!    I wonder if Canada consulted with the the Ohio ANG ?

Even more in Canadian    !!   I would suspect they would have done just that, had the C-130J been entered into the competition.

[Derek 2.0]

1 minute ago, Smallc said:

According to figures from the Ohio Air National Guard, whose crews fly the C-27Js, the aircraft cost about $2,100 per hour to fly, as compared with about $7,000 for the C-130 and more than $9,000 for a Chinook.

http://www.stripes.com/news/c-27j-transport-aircraft-on-chopping-block-nine-months-after-debut-1.175223

 

 

First, they no longer fly it (have went back to Hercs), second you're comparing it to both an older, but far more capable aircraft..........the Chinook costs are a red herring, as all helicopters are expensive to operate.

[Smallc]

I'm not the one that brought up the C-130 as an option.  

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Even more in Canadian    !!   I would suspect they would have done just that, had the C-130J been entered into the competition.

 

I don't think Canada has any idea what actual flight hours costs are, so citing U.S. data has been normalized across several procurements.   I guess it is just easier because the data is readily available.   History has shown they much prefer to politicize total life cycle costs to doom projects not currently in favour.  

[Smallc]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

I don't think Canada has any idea what actual flight hours costs are  

Canadians make up flight hour costs - it's the way we prefer it.

[Derek 2.0]

1 minute ago, Smallc said:

I'm not the one that brought up the C-130 as an option.  

 

No, you're the one suggesting the C-295 is the cats ass though........with the Trudeau government's selection, we are not only losing numbers (and tankers), but a far more capable aircraft already making up the majority of the FWSAR fleet.......a case could be made for the C-295 or C-27J as a Buff replacement, but not replacing the Herc.....

 

1 minute ago, Smallc said:

Canadians make up flight hour costs - it's the way we prefer it.

 

Moot point, as "flight hours cost" is an average obtained through fleet size and usage.......