Defence Department under fire over $3B plane contract

Using lobbyists is one of the ways we always get into trouble...

Does the new Twin Otter or Beaver have a rear ramp? It looks like that is one of the requirements.

They don't, but the Buffalo does.

Regardless, every company is guilty of hiring lobbiests, and while I would liek to see a Canadian made aircraft get the contract, ultimately it's not my job to decide what fits the bill.

I can't believe that DND is so desperate to buy Italian planes when we could get Canadian-made ones, especially when those are almost the same as the planes they've been using for 40 years.

Lose the politics and ask yourself: Does it meet the criteria?

It must, it's already served for the past 40 years.

We're trading back to the Lee Enfields also?

Apples and oranges.

The airframe of the buffalo is sound. The new buffalos have the benefit of the new airframe, new avionics, and new motors.

The point is, if the aircraft meets the bill but is old, then new (not rebuilt) aircraft should be fine. The cost savings, if I remember correctly, were about 1.5 billion.

SAR planes and rifles for front line troops are apples and oranges.

I could maybe understand if there was some massive change in technology, weather or something, like anti-grav SAR planes or something, but that hasn't happened. Hell, if we suddenly started having frequent earthquakes or hurricanes or something like that then, once again, I could understand.

There is no reason why we suddenly require these capabilities in SAR. This is all because the DND thinks the curent government will buy anything they are told to. I hate to sound like a broken record, but this all goes back to the C-17.

Had Harper held even the shortest of competitions for that contract, the Air Brass wouldn't try this BS. But they didn't for that contract (or the Chinook deal), and now the Air Brass is thinking the sky's the limit for whatever they want. If air force generals could definitively prove the need for the Italian planes, then I could back it.

Did you read the article? The C-295 was disqualified because it's cabin is 15cm too short (and 12 km/h too slow)? That proves my point right there. This contract was set-up just like the C-17 and Chinook contracts to ensure only one plane would be bought.

Seriously, the requirements are tailored made for one plane. They didn't think they would actually be held to task on this one and they never seriously tendered this so that the competitors could at least up their offers to meet the specs.

Like Boot said, it must have because it met spec for last 40 years. The only reason why the Bison II was never in the running is the speed and Bombardier can't be used because of no rear hatch but there hasn't been a serious attempt by DND to actually try to make the offer work so the contract stays in Canada employing Canadians. The fix is in and everyone knew it. That's why this didn't pass the smell test and was sent back to DND for review. It's our military and it's our money.

One thing I notice people keep forgetting though is that with a new SAR aircraft they are trying to fill two different roles with one aircraft, they want the STOL capability provided by the fleet of Buffallos combined with the range, speed, and altitute of the Hercs that are also used for SAR. Hence the very rare number jump from 5 to 17 aircraft.

Buffallo doesn't nor will ever provide the speed and altitude of the Herc, nor the range, nor the payload, because it was designed to be bullet proof, have a STOL capability, and have a loiter capability (all which requires an inherintly slow and low aircraft).

Possible solution? Take the money saved by investing in the Canadian economy and buy even more Hercs. Might be able to get a sweet deal out of the yanks for something else in exchange for buying a few more airframes.

I would like to see Viking get a contract for airplanes. I applied for a job with them a couple weeks ago.

I hope you get it Ruez that would rule.