dre Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Smallc said: So they did follow the prescribed method - @Army Guy, what now? Yup and a lot of what they did is follow procedures the conservative government already put in place. After a bunch of reading today I realize why its so hard to deal with these big defense contractors. The losers of every bid are expected to sue... costing the government more and more money. So the government has to appoint a "fairness" commissioner to make absolutely sure the process was not in any way preferential. In any case... We bought something we needed. Sars guys will be able to stop using 35 year old planes, and depending on how much the government spends fighting law suits from the losers we may have saved the tax payer some money. Of course there will be some people that complain we didnt get the highest end and most expensive option but who cares about them. Edited December 12, 2016 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Army Guy Posted December 12, 2016 Author Report Posted December 12, 2016 3 hours ago, Omni said: All of us would love to have the BEST of everything, however the best is not always required. Hence my auto purchase reference. I don't know what you mean by the military stealing our money idea. Who has said that? one would think , and i'm just guess here, but when someone life is one the line, I tend to put more importance on the purchase, I also would be willing to spend a bit more....of course I am not you, and this is not your sons car..... it is a SAR aircraft who's main mission is to save lives.....the military or the guys who use the aircraft on a daily basis recommended the C-27J.....because of many reasons.....and like every purchase before it...."if the military likes something stay away from it" shit they even tried to trick us those stupid bastards.....don't they know we are not going to buy something they picked out....not sure why...just a old rule....we call it civil over sight..... Now if the Military had been stuffing their pockets with tax payers money for their own use.....we as the citizens of this country might have a reason to distrust our military......but that is not what happen here was it.....No the military has been accused of the most heinous crime.....wanting a piece of equipment that was better than the cheapest piece, wanting a piece of equipment that might save lives.....give them an edge on the battle field or in doing their job.......there is a reason for that but forget that....why do we forget that.....because for some reason Canadians see our military as untrust worthy, always wanting something.....there always planning to take over the world....or maybe just Canada, not sure , they may be aliens........... and for that reason DND is not trusted by the citizens of Canada......and it requires full civilian over sight....or direct control by our elected government ....because it is demanded by the people.... Bullshit when has our military been a threat to this country or it's citizens.....when has it ever not been there when you needed them.....SO why the mistrust ?..... And yet how times have we heard on the media of our elected officials stealing, misusing, tax payers funding....how many have used tax payers dollars for their own benefit , or comfort.....and these are the people you demand to have over sight over DND ....does that make sense....do you see where I am going with this....kind of making the fox watch the hen house then blaming the chickens when something goes wrong......how smart is that.....that sir is Canadian smart. you discuss this like we where going out to buy a toaster....the cheapest one will do....and yet this equipment is being used to save lives....still brushed away....saving money is the main issue here.....everything else does not count for squat.....one day you and others may have your sons and daughters strapping themselves into this equipment, going to risk there lives in what you have decided or declared good enough.....like you would when you bought a toaster.....it is because you have nothing invested in that decision.....no skin in the game..... 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 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 8 minutes ago, Army Guy said: one would think , and i'm just guess here, but when someone life is one the line, I tend to put more importance on the purchase, I also would be willing to spend a bit more....of course I am not you, and this is not your sons car..... it is a SAR aircraft who's main mission is to save lives.....the military or the guys who use the aircraft on a daily basis recommended the C-27J.....because of many reasons.....and like every purchase before it...."if the military likes something stay away from it" shit they even tried to trick us those stupid bastards.....don't they know we are not going to buy something they picked out....not sure why...just a old rule....we call it civil over sight..... Now if the Military had been stuffing their pockets with tax payers money for their own use.....we as the citizens of this country might have a reason to distrust our military......but that is not what happen here was it.....No the military has been accused of the most heinous crime.....wanting a piece of equipment that was better than the cheapest piece, wanting a piece of equipment that might save lives.....give them an edge on the battle field or in doing their job.......there is a reason for that but forget that....why do we forget that.....because for some reason Canadians see our military as untrust worthy, always wanting something.....there always planning to take over the world....or maybe just Canada, not sure , they may be aliens........... and for that reason DND is not trusted by the citizens of Canada......and it requires full civilian over sight....or direct control by our elected government ....because it is demanded by the people.... Bullshit when has our military been a threat to this country or it's citizens.....when has it ever not been there when you needed them.....SO why the mistrust ?..... And yet how times have we heard on the media of our elected officials stealing, misusing, tax payers funding....how many have used tax payers dollars for their own benefit , or comfort.....and these are the people you demand to have over sight over DND ....does that make sense....do you see where I am going with this....kind of making the fox watch the hen house then blaming the chickens when something goes wrong......how smart is that.....that sir is Canadian smart. you discuss this like we where going out to buy a toaster....the cheapest one will do....and yet this equipment is being used to save lives....still brushed away....saving money is the main issue here.....everything else does not count for squat.....one day you and others may have your sons and daughters strapping themselves into this equipment, going to risk there lives in what you have decided or declared good enough.....like you would when you bought a toaster.....it is because you have nothing invested in that decision.....no skin in the game..... Your analogy is not apt. The government did not buy a cheap toaster. It made a 15 billion dollar commitment to SARS/RCAF. Every one those collars comes from people that work their asses off and pay taxes. Its not chump change... its a substancial investment and commitment. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Army Guy Posted December 12, 2016 Author Report Posted December 12, 2016 23 minutes ago, Smallc said: So they did follow the prescribed method - @Army Guy, what now? well unless my math is wrong....it is not 40 years is it....First aircraft is no on the ground until 2019 right......and it has been costed until 2052.......that is only 33 years by NB math....not sure what it is in Manitoba math......and correct me if i'm wrong the liberals did announce already the entire project would only cost at max 4.2 bil.....and today we are looking at 14.7 not including 7 more years as required by law.....right....and you talk like I am the one that made this law......but the law is a law.....and the liberals have not lived up with that have they.....What happened to sunny fuc*ing ways......not so sunny now ....when the shoe is on the other foot.....so if we went out to 40 years that would be what 16 or 17 bil big difference, but then again they just went ahead a purchased the aircraft before any debate could happen within the country......Smart move on the liberals....but once again that is not the transparency we were promised was it.... I get it the law sucks , it is retarded.....but it was also what the people wanted.....fo 14.7 bil dollars I would at least want a plane I could stand up in.....but liberal experts know better..... 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.
Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 40 minutes ago, dre said: I dont know if those numbers are accurate or not or what methodology national defense applied. But they are pretty close to your own estimates. The details are lacking, my question, are these figures directly related to the C-295 and its through life support, or do they include the entire costs of operating a FWSAR fleet? You know, like the figures applied to the F-35, which included everything from salaries, landscaping of runways to the cost of painting hangers? Sauce for the goose and all... I do know the Tories (and then the Liberals) were looking at forging FWSAR and privatizing the function (Like what is done in the UK and Australia)......ergo, the Liberals should be forthcoming with the entire program, to ensure taxpayers are getting best value for money, when contrasted with handing it to a private company......in the spirit of being open and transparent....... Quote
dre Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 7 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said: The details are lacking, my question, are these figures directly related to the C-295 and its through life support, or do they include the entire costs of operating a FWSAR fleet? You know, like the figures applied to the F-35, which included everything from salaries, landscaping of runways to the cost of painting hangers? Sauce for the goose and all... I do know the Tories (and then the Liberals) were looking at forging FWSAR and privatizing the function (Like what is done in the UK and Australia)......ergo, the Liberals should be forthcoming with the entire program, to ensure taxpayers are getting best value for money, when contrasted with handing it to a private company......in the spirit of being open and transparent....... I dont know the answers you questions bud, and I am too tired to look for them right now. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Army Guy Posted December 12, 2016 Author Report Posted December 12, 2016 8 minutes ago, dre said: Your analogy is not apt. The government did not buy a cheap toaster. It made a 15 billion dollar commitment to SARS/RCAF. Every one those collars comes from people that work their asses off and pay taxes. Its not chump change... its a substancial investment and commitment. My analogy is bang on, you and others discuss what is good enough as if the government did just that bought a toaster....without any consideration to the people who will operate them , or lives that may be saved by them.....the main and prime reasoning behind your debating tech is and was MONEY...nothing else was looked at or discuss..... And lets just stop a minute , and clarify a few things.....everyone of those serving our forces today pay taxes....and they work there asses off everyday just like you claim, and still they have no voice........and while they may not risk their lives everyday in the service of their country.........those SAR techs and aircrew that perform this task for all Canadians might and I said might have earned the right to have their voices heard....at least in my books....they don't strike for more pay or better equipment, DND is on duty 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.....it has not failed once to respond to Canadians needs, nor has it refused to go any where it was needed foreign and domestic... Not sure what the military did to you or your kin....but with all the Bils the liberals have already pissed away, not to mention all the bils that have been cut from DND budget and never returned...all to service our debt....or to pay for some wild ideas.....and in doing so all that happened was purchases were put away placed in buy in better times file.....well times are not better but the equipment is falling apart....and now the liberals have got caught hold the basket....and it is time to pay the piper.....here we have a chance to do this right or doing it on the 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.
poochy Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 5 hours ago, dre said: Your analogy is not apt. The government did not buy a cheap toaster. It made a 15 billion dollar commitment to SARS/RCAF. Every one those collars comes from people that work their asses off and pay taxes. Its not chump change... its a substancial investment and commitment. What a terribly dishonest argument, if we need x billions a year to maintain our current level of health care and the government decided to give us 75 percent of that, and the argument was, well, it's still health care, it just takes longer to get it, and it might not be as good, but stop bitching, you got your health care, we would all be livid. Anything concerning the military is always an opportunity to cheap out for some Canadians, always. Its why the libs keep pandering to you. Are you nearly as concerned about our tax dollars when it comes to a Carbon tax that will cost the average person thousands a year and not prevent AGW? lol, not a chance. Quote
Army Guy Posted December 12, 2016 Author Report Posted December 12, 2016 16 hours ago, dre said: Your analogy is not apt. The government did not buy a cheap toaster. It made a 15 billion dollar commitment to SARS/RCAF. Every one those collars comes from people that work their asses off and pay taxes. Its not chump change... its a substancial investment and commitment. 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..........What happened here was this was a political purchase, to bolster support for the liberal party, and maximize the off sets available to certain regions of the country. Then they have the balls to call it a 15 bil commitment to our Military....when it was a compromise nothing more....they were forced to make the purchase....but totally ignored the advice and testing given to them by the military ....the end user...and went instead in a total different direction......Just like every other purchase they have made since our military has stood up.....nice the track record.....and when asked Why is it you distrust the military so much....you can't seem to find the answer.....you demand civilian over sight by our elected government officials.....who have proven over and over again.....that they are the ones stuffing their pockets with our the tax payers money.....and they are the ones we want overseeing the hen house ....good call, must be a liberal thing..... 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.
The_Squid Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 16 minutes ago, Army Guy said: .good call, must be a liberal thing..... It's called a democracy... and not a military dictatorship. Civilian oversight is what happens in democracies. Quote
Argus Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 16 hours ago, dre said: Your analogy is not apt. The government did not buy a cheap toaster. It made a 15 billion dollar commitment to SARS/RCAF. Every one those collars comes from people that work their asses off and pay taxes. Its not chump change... its a substancial investment and commitment. It's not substantial enough. 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 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 11 hours ago, poochy said: What a terribly dishonest argument, if we need x billions a year to maintain our current level of health care and the government decided to give us 75 percent of that, and the argument was, well, it's still health care, it just takes longer to get it, and it might not be as good, but stop bitching, you got your health care, we would all be livid. Anything concerning the military is always an opportunity to cheap out for some Canadians, always. Its why the libs keep pandering to you. Are you nearly as concerned about our tax dollars when it comes to a Carbon tax that will cost the average person thousands a year and not prevent AGW? lol, not a chance. I think it may be your arguments that are a little faulty. Specs were set out for the aircraft and this one met them, not 75% of them. Don't like the specs? blame the NRC. Quote
Argus Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 4 minutes ago, Omni said: I think it may be your arguments that are a little faulty. Specs were set out for the aircraft and this one met them, not 75% of them. Don't like the specs? blame the NRC. Because the government had nothing to do with that, right... 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
Army Guy Posted December 12, 2016 Author Report Posted December 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, The_Squid said: It's called a democracy... and not a military dictatorship. Civilian oversight is what happens in democracies. You missed the entire point ....but then again your not listening anyways.... You have developed a distrust for the military why?....and why do you trust the government officials more , when they have constantly shown that they can not be trusted, in scandal over scandal......with their hands in the cookie jar....And yet these are the same people you want guarding the hen house...... Military dictatorship....your funny.....because our military would be capable of such a thing.....what do we do send one guy to every town and city and demand you surrender....way to funny....did you forget this was Canada....and our Military has never had anything but your best interests in mind ....but some how you think it is this demon we should keep locked up.....in the cellar..... That is not democracy that is blind faith in our government which is dangerous......true democracy is having trust and faith in our institutions because they have earned that trust and faith through hard and honest work....,that has not happened in a long while.... 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.
The_Squid Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 14 minutes ago, Army Guy said: You missed the entire point ....but then again your not listening anyways.... You have developed a distrust for the military why?....and why do you trust the government officials more , when they have constantly shown that they can not be trusted, in scandal over scandal......with their hands in the cookie jar....And yet these are the same people you want guarding the hen house...... Military dictatorship....your funny.....because our military would be capable of such a thing.....what do we do send one guy to every town and city and demand you surrender....way to funny....did you forget this was Canada....and our Military has never had anything but your best interests in mind ....but some how you think it is this demon we should keep locked up.....in the cellar..... That is not democracy that is blind faith in our government which is dangerous......true democracy is having trust and faith in our institutions because they have earned that trust and faith through hard and honest work....,that has not happened in a long while.... You're talking complete nonsense. The military can't be left to their own devices with a blank cheque to purchase whatever they wish. That would be asinine. Of course there will be oversight and of course it will be the government who does so. Who else is there? The military has proven itself to be extremely incompetent at even simple procurements. And you have admitted this plane will do the job... this is all about who is buying, not what they're buying. A totally partisan argument. Quote
Army Guy Posted December 12, 2016 Author Report Posted December 12, 2016 11 minutes ago, Omni said: I think it may be your arguments that are a little faulty. Specs were set out for the aircraft and this one met them, not 75% of them. Don't like the specs? blame the NRC. You don't see a problem with your statement.....let me spell it out for you.....DND wrote the specs....Procurement did not like them.....accused DND of writing them to the C-27J, but could not prove it........they complain, because DND and procurement have this history of getting along.......the complaint is received by our federal government, who decides they to don't like the specs DND wrote either they do not fit in with any of the federal political plans...Now instead of telling DND to rewrite the specs, "they look like they were written to one aircraft only and break the procurement riles" , then discipline whom ever was in charge of spec writing this for DND for breaking said rules ...not what happened......they spin the giant wheel in the PM office and it lands on NRC office...."who knows very little about SAR aircraft, but more than the average politician"..... nobody see the problem here.... 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 12, 2016 Author Report Posted December 12, 2016 6 minutes ago, The_Squid said: You're talking complete nonsense. The military can't be left to their own devices with a blank cheque to purchase whatever they wish. That would be asinine. Of course there will be oversight and of course it will be the government who does so. Who else is there? The military has proven itself to be extremely incompetent at even simple procurements. And you have admitted this plane will do the job... this is all about who is buying, not what they're buying. A totally partisan argument. When are you going to wake UP.....The Military does not procure anything on it's own unless it is under 25,000 k........The military is only responsible for writing the specs and providing advice to the civilian buyers...(.PWSG.).... DND is responsible for testing and researching of equipment chosen by PWSG.....the final choice is made by the current government to which equipment is purchased........so if DND is just in charge of specs, providing advice on tech advice ,maintence , parts , ammo packages for the contract, and testing....nothing to do with purchasing .....should I say it again.....nothing to do with purchasing.....which leaves PWSG, and the government that do the buying.....are you getting it now.....DND does not BUY anything.....it may express an opinion during the testing phase....but that opinion is generally disregarded......SO please explain to me how DND ficks all that up.....Your don't think the government is going to take the fall do you.....but hey if it makes you sleep better go ahead....blame DND, or maybe here is a thought do some research... Back to square one....Nobody said give DND a blank cheque, they could set a limit or dollar amount as they do anyway.....and let DND purchase within that, what possible reason would you care what equipment DND bought if it was within the agree purchase levels, or is it your civil duty to make sure DND buys only equipment you approve of.......or better yet.....take a look at the purchase system as a whole and redesign it so it works.....novel idea..... 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 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 21 minutes ago, Army Guy said: You don't see a problem with your statement.....let me spell it out for you.....DND wrote the specs....Procurement did not like them.....accused DND of writing them to the C-27J, but could not prove it........they complain, because DND and procurement have this history of getting along.......the complaint is received by our federal government, who decides they to don't like the specs DND wrote either they do not fit in with any of the federal political plans...Now instead of telling DND to rewrite the specs, "they look like they were written to one aircraft only and break the procurement riles" , then discipline whom ever was in charge of spec writing this for DND for breaking said rules ...not what happened......they spin the giant wheel in the PM office and it lands on NRC office...."who knows very little about SAR aircraft, but more than the average politician"..... nobody see the problem here.... According to the air force "The C-295 more than meets the requirements of the Royal Canadian Air Force." The specs the DND had laid out were too specific, and clashed with the governments need to be able to provide an open competition. Quote
Army Guy Posted December 12, 2016 Author Report Posted December 12, 2016 What the hell did you expect them to say.....who does DND work for again....the battle is over, the contract announced , DND lost again it is time to smile and eat shit once again......but then again you don't see that...... DND wrote the specs, for what they wanted in their next aircraft.....PWSG said it was not broad enough...it favored one aircraft....meaning the C295 according to the airforce was not up to the cut.....not happy with that they had the specs rewritten by another dept that knows what about SAR again....to loosen the specs....and it was not decided on specs anyways, it was price.....and political reasons... 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.
The_Squid Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 9 minutes ago, Army Guy said: What the hell did you expect them to say.....who does DND work for again....the battle is over, the contract announced , DND lost again it is time to smile and eat shit once again......but then again you don't see that...... DND wrote the specs, for what they wanted in their next aircraft.....PWSG said it was not broad enough...it favored one aircraft....meaning the C295 according to the airforce was not up to the cut.....not happy with that they had the specs rewritten by another dept that knows what about SAR again....to loosen the specs....and it was not decided on specs anyways, it was price.....and political reasons... So you're saying the C295W isn't a good plane for SAR in Canada? It will be worse than the Buffalo, which does a decent job of SAR (for an old plane) on the west coast ...? You seem very confused. Quote
Smallc Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: You don't see a problem with your statement.....let me spell it out for you.....DND wrote the specs....Procurement did not like them.....accused DND of writing them to the C-27J, but could not prove it........they complain, because DND and procurement have this history of getting along.......the complaint is received by our federal government, who decides they to don't like the specs DND wrote either they do not fit in with any of the federal political plans...Now instead of telling DND to rewrite the specs, "they look like they were written to one aircraft only and break the procurement riles" , then discipline whom ever was in charge of spec writing this for DND for breaking said rules ...not what happened......they spin the giant wheel in the PM office and it lands on NRC office...."who knows very little about SAR aircraft, but more than the average politician"..... nobody see the problem here.... What are you talking about? It was proven that they doctored the commitment. Quote
Wilber Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 The C295 will probably be perfectly adequate as a SAR aircraft but the C-27J best bridges the gap between the Buffalo and the Herc. It's a mini Herc. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 24 minutes ago, Wilber said: The C295 will probably be perfectly adequate as a SAR aircraft but the C-27J best bridges the gap between the Buffalo and the Herc. It's a mini Herc. Sure - but it costs a lot more to buy and operate. We got more planes for our money. Quote
Argus Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 1 hour ago, The_Squid said: So you're saying the C295W isn't a good plane for SAR in Canada? 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... 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
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.