David Pugliese reports an economy with the truth

The Ottawa Citizen's ace defence reporter, in his continuing attack on the government's acquisitions for the Air Force, reports a most misleading statement by a defence industry executive:

An Italian aerospace company says the selection of a U.S.-built aircraft to replace the Canadian military's aging Hercules transports was unfair and that it can save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars with its plane.

Alenia North America is the third aerospace firm to step forward with the claim the Defence Department's selection of the Lockheed Martin C-130J was nothing more than a sole-source deal with Lockheed as the predetermined winner.

Alenia, flush from its success this week after winning a multibillion-dollar deal to provide more than 150 transport aircraft to the U.S. military [see Upperdate at this post], says it was kept out of the Canadian competition and that its product, the C-27J, is a third of the cost of Lockheed's C-130J. In addition, the C-27J can also be used to replace Canada's aging search-and-rescue aircraft, saving even more money, Alenia North America president Giuseppe Giordo said yesterday.

Now for the misleading statement:

Mr. Giordo said the C-27J competed in the U.S. military program against the C-130J and won.

Yes, but it was eliminated in the first downselect for the US Army/USAF Joint Cargo Aircraft, mainly because the Army did not want the Herc. Because it was too big and might get diverted from Army to USAF priorities. This competition was to meet requirements--mainly rapid support of the Army in a fairly limited geographical area--completely different from the CF's requirements in a tactical airlifter. The final competition was between the C-27J and the EADS CASA C-295 (the two main contenders for our new fixed-wing SAR aircraft requirement).

It might have been helpful for readers if Mr Pugliese had mentioned these salient facts. You don't buy a Chevy Suburban if what you need is a TrailBlazer--and vice versa.

Then there's this bit of true silliness, reported without analysis by Mr Publiese:

Mr. Giordo said the C-27J can do about 80 per cent of the job of a C-130J and costs about one-fifth the price to maintain...

Is Mr Pugliese simply a mouthpiece for Alenia (and Airbus--see what follows the quotes above in his story)? That 80% figure, even if true is irrelevant if the C-27J does not meet our needs. The C-27J has a range of only 1,000 nautical miles with a 10,000 kg payload. How the hell is it going to get across the Atlantic with a significant load? Or from Trenton to Vancouver in the event of a major disaster? With more stops and much less cargo than a Herc, which has a range of 1,800 nautical miles with its normal maximum 15,422 kg payload. Put another way, 80% more range with 50% more payload. Those are the figures that really matter. Why did Mr Pugliese not look them up?