Tories set to sink billions into cargo planes for military
Newsbot @ Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:52 pm
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=7174" target="_blank">Tories set to sink billions into cargo planes for military</a> (click to view)
<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=News_Links&file=category&catid=13" target="_blank">Military</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=Scape" target="_blank">Scape</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2006-06-05 07:30:39
<strong>Canadian</strong>
Streaker @ Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:52 pm
And in one fell swoop billions will be wasted so that our Prime Minister can have the honour of lodging his nose further up Bush's arse. Gee thanks Stevie!
ridenrain @ Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:01 pm
And in one fell swoop our troops will have the gear that the Liberals promised years and years ago.<BR>
Arctic_Menace @ Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:28 pm
Guys, who fuckin' cares?! It's new equipment!!!! Be happy!!!
PENATRATOR @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:53 am
$1:
And in one fell swoop billions will be wasted so that our Prime Minister can have the honour of lodging his nose further up Bush's arse. Gee thanks Stevie!
Fuck off no mind
-Mario- @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:57 am
O O:
And in one fell swoop billions will be wasted so that our Prime Minister can have the honour of lodging his nose further up Bush's arse. Gee thanks Stevie!
You join and try to fix those old vintage planes....
Streaker @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:59 am
The C-17s are a big waste of money.
Much better value for the taxpayer's dollar could have been had with Antonovs or Ilyushins.
-Mario- @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:02 am
Streaker Streaker:
The C-17s are a big waste of money.
Much better value for the taxpayer's dollar could have been had with Antonovs or Ilyushins.
Much better value for the taxpayer's dollar could have been had with Antonovs or Ilyushins.
Initial cost are cheaper... but on the long run... they become a lot more expensive. For example, the engine will need refit a lot more often.
2Cdo @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:03 am
Streaker Streaker:
The C-17s are a big waste of money.
Much better value for the taxpayer's dollar could have been had with Antonovs or Ilyushins.
Much better value for the taxpayer's dollar could have been had with Antonovs or Ilyushins.
How true, because we all know the Russians maintanence record is impeccable!
ridenrain @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:08 am
I can't believe the low levels some folks will sink just to dump on a government. Doing what they said they'd do, and being popular about it must really be pissing you folks off.
I still bet that the cost differences between the Soviet and US aircraft will be lost when you factor in the parts that were made by/for Boeing in Canada
bootlegga @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:10 am
Now, now Penetrator, no need for that kind of language.
Streaker is all for buying airlift for the CF, he just disagrees with buying the most expensive plane with less range and cargo capacity than the IL-76MF or the AN-124.
I have to admit I was a big fan of the C-17 until I did more research too. Either Russian plane is 20-25% of the cost of a C-17 with better range and cargo capacity. We've used AN-124s to get DART to Sri Lanka and Pakistan, so they can't be all that bad...
This topic has already been thoroughly discussed in these two threads if you're really interested in it at all.
Thread #1
Thread #2
Taken from thread #1;
$1:
From this table we can see that, compared with the C-17, an An-124-100 has:
• 55 % greater maximum load than the C-17
• 115 % more of a maximum cargo-cabin volume
• 33 % greater range (when carrying 77t – the C-17’s maximum load)
Put simply, the An-124 can carry loads which are 1.5 times heavier, cargo that is more than twice as large, and it can travel almost 1,500 km further than the C-17 with a similar load.
Taking an average of the above performance characteristics (55%, 115% & 33% better / 3), we come to the conclusion that An-124-100 has a critical strategic airlifter performance which is 68% better than that of the C-17.
• 55 % greater maximum load than the C-17
• 115 % more of a maximum cargo-cabin volume
• 33 % greater range (when carrying 77t – the C-17’s maximum load)
Put simply, the An-124 can carry loads which are 1.5 times heavier, cargo that is more than twice as large, and it can travel almost 1,500 km further than the C-17 with a similar load.
Taking an average of the above performance characteristics (55%, 115% & 33% better / 3), we come to the conclusion that An-124-100 has a critical strategic airlifter performance which is 68% better than that of the C-17.
This is why Streaker is bashing the deal, we are aren't buying the most capable plane but the most expensive plane.
PENATRATOR @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:10 am
Streaker Streaker:
The C-17s are a big waste of money.
Much better value for the taxpayer's dollar could have been had with Antonovs or Ilyushins.
Much better value for the taxpayer's dollar could have been had with Antonovs or Ilyushins.
Talk to the Airforce boys in Trenton about how safe these shit boxes are. You would not catch them up in one.
PENATRATOR @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:13 am
Yes, how true, it always feels good operating equipment your life depends on when in the back of your head you know in previous government contracts the lowest bidder built it.
Nothing to good for the troops
Streaker @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:14 am
ridenrain ridenrain:
And in one fell swoop our troops will have the gear that the Liberals promised years and years ago.
And in one fell swoop they could have bought the more suitable Russian planes, which apparently were good enough for the military that they had no problem chartering them these last few years.
Buying Russian obviously would require that our defence establishment and politicians use some imagination and give up some of their tired old prejudices.
It would be nice if they would at least consider alternatives to these overpriced American planes.
Numure @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:14 am
PENATRATOR PENATRATOR:
Streaker Streaker:
The C-17s are a big waste of money.
Much better value for the taxpayer's dollar could have been had with Antonovs or Ilyushins.
Much better value for the taxpayer's dollar could have been had with Antonovs or Ilyushins.
Talk to the Airforce boys in Trenton about how safe these shit boxes are. You would not catch them up in one.
Actually, I asked a few of my friends that work for the Baggotville base here in Saguenay... They all told me alot of good about the Antonovs. After all, the Russians developed the antonovs to carry around their space shuttle.