jdobbin Posted December 20, 2007 Author Report Posted December 20, 2007 It is a credit to the engineers that any of these aircraft can still operate witha degree of efficiancy. Still, to use a sub hunter and call it an SAR platform is a little disengenuous....sure a destroyer can be a maritime rescue ship..... It was the DND that wanted the upgrades in the first place. Now, with a new regime, they want new planes and to hasten it, they reduce flights, cancel upgrades and hope for an order of new planes without tender as per the usual. Quote
M.Dancer Posted December 20, 2007 Report Posted December 20, 2007 It was the DND that wanted the upgrades in the first place. Now, with a new regime, they want new planes and to hasten it, they reduce flights, cancel upgrades and hope for an order of new planes without tender as per the usual. No real need for tender unless it is to haggle down the price from the one we will buy anyway. But that doesn't address what we need are anti sub/shipping patrol planes and a dedicated SAR wing. Might be an opportunity for bombardier. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
jdobbin Posted December 20, 2007 Author Report Posted December 20, 2007 No real need for tender unless it is to haggle down the price from the one we will buy anyway. But that doesn't address what we need are anti sub/shipping patrol planes and a dedicated SAR wing. Might be an opportunity for bombardier. The haggling on the price and "extras" is exactly what I had in mind. I'd hate to think we might be paying too high or that we could subcontract some of the other work out and get superior technical and/or prices on some of the the electronics. Quote
MontyBurns Posted December 22, 2007 Report Posted December 22, 2007 Maybe we could cut social programs to help pay for these planes. Quote "From my cold dead hands." Charlton Heston
jdobbin Posted December 22, 2007 Author Report Posted December 22, 2007 (edited) Maybe we could cut social programs to help pay for these planes. I suppose you could end Medicare, old age security and end CPP and you can have a really big military. Edited December 23, 2007 by jdobbin Quote
Wilber Posted December 22, 2007 Report Posted December 22, 2007 I'm wondering if this might have something to do with presenting the government a dilemma when it comes to the future of the Aurora. Linky How much should you sink into them if you won't be able to get the future engineering support you might need. High time P3's also have crack issues with the wings and tail requiring major work which we could be presented with in the not too distant future. I'm thinking there is more to this than meets the eye. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
jdobbin Posted December 23, 2007 Author Report Posted December 23, 2007 I'm wondering if this might have something to do with presenting the government a dilemma when it comes to the future of the Aurora.How much should you sink into them if you won't be able to get the future engineering support you might need. High time P3's also have crack issues with the wings and tail requiring major work which we could be presented with in the not too distant future. I'm thinking there is more to this than meets the eye. The government has not indicated that this was the reason for cancelling the upgrade or reducing northern flights. 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.