jmt18325 said:
It meets the specifications that we put out - specifications designed independently because of earlier problems caused by DND itself. There is actually no evidence that this plane won't perform the role we've bought it to perform.
Read the article from some SAR SMEs. The 3 main actual requirements when you scrape away the fat, are similar to ours for LRP (SAR is a secondary task for us as well).
- ability to get to LKP ASAP. *Time to get from runway to place I need to be*.
- ONSTA time. *once I am there, how long can I remain there to conduct the task*
- payload. *what can I take, and how much of it, to do the job*
Generally speaking, the more I take, and the faster I go to get there, then I will reduce my ONSTA (on station) time. Its a balancing act to get to the right place, at the right time, with the right things. I am not a pilot, but I do fly for a living and have done practice and *real* SAR and my somewhat informed opinion is this airframe will fall short. If/when it does, it may cost lives.
You can put more weight in stupid studies and stuff from folks who don't do the job, or you can put more weight in the articles linked above from people who actually do / have done SAR for a living, coast to coast to coast. Pretty simple choice to me.
Article:
FWSAR: Analysis of the C295W Airbus Acquisition