[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The key point is that the Canadians had no thought of paying for the development of a new-design helicopter to meet its needs. That puts them in the position of offering money for whatever is on the shelf, plus or minus limited modifications.

In such case blue-sky specs make no sense at all. You just have to put a dollar amount on whatever you think each capability on offer is worth--and make an eyes-open case that one vendor or the other should be given the contract. And take the political heat for whatever political motives may consequently be imputed to you.

"Perfect" acquisition is illusory; you can easily pay more in the cost of evaluating proposals than the contract is worth in total. I think of the occasion when an engineer needed, for government project, a model of a particular airplane. His choices were to pay for the model out of his own pocket or to wait a few months for the procurement process to get the "low bid." Even though an hour of the engineer's time was worth more than the model . . .

[Cicero]

I agree with you. Air-sea rescue helicopters are in use all around the world. They should look at what is available, consult with their military procurement experts, and decide what modifications, if any, are needed to existing helicopters.

Some degree of corruption is almost inevitable in military contracting, but there should at least be a mechanism to ensure that the products will do the job and not bankrupt the government. In other words, if somebody want a moderate rakeoff, fine, but don't compromise safety and lives.