Wilber Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 They have a history going back a hundred plus years manufacturing state of the art artillery. The intellectual capital didn't appear overnight. True but it didn't appear by magic either Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Bonam Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 We should get a few dozen Kamov KA-52 Alligators while we're at it as well. They are cool. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 We should get a few dozen Kamov KA-52 Alligators while we're at it as well. They are cool. Kind of a short range on the thing...plus it's Russian. But it sure looks mean. The CH-53 could probably fill many of Canada's needs + has "unlimited" range if working with tankers. Heavy lift...lots of troops. But...you know...the pencil heads will look at the price tag and go back to looking at cheap-azz helicopters. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Argus Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) The CH-146 is a varient of the 412 which is a varient of the 212... which is a varient of the original UH-1.They are all Huey's and all are Military helicopters. Thanks for coming out. Maybe if I use really small words... There is a big bird thing, see, called a Bell. It's used by the traffic reporters. Now there is a military version - far more expensive, far more surviveable. It's called a Huey. The Griffon is NOT a military version or variant of the Huey. It is a varient of the CIVILIAN bird. Okay? Good for traffic, not so good for being shot at. Edited July 9, 2009 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 We should get a few dozen Kamov KA-52 Alligators while we're at it as well. They are cool. We don't buy equipment from the enemy. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Bonam Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 We don't buy equipment from the enemy. It's not 1980 anymore? Russia is hardly "the enemy". Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 ....The CH-53 could probably fill many of Canada's needs + has "unlimited" range if working with tankers. Heavy lift...lots of troops. But...you know...the pencil heads will look at the price tag and go back to looking at cheap-azz helicopters. Stallions are a bitch...a real handful. Puts the "heavy" in "heavy airlift". Great for evacuations from an embassy! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Argus Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 It's not 1980 anymore? Russia is hardly "the enemy". They're hardly friends, and it's more likely than not that they will be the enemy in the near to medium term. We don't want our vehicles looking like theirs to trigger happy yankee gunners. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
DogOnPorch Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 Stallions are a bitch...a real handful. Puts the "heavy" in "heavy airlift". Great for evacuations from an embassy! I agree. The K is a complete re-make of the older E model so I was thinking many of the bitchier bits would have been fixed. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 I agree. The K is a complete re-make of the older E model so I was thinking many of the bitchier bits would have been fixed. I sure hope so...because the older airframes were just ponderous leviathons that put the fear of death into crews during surface ship flight ops (e.g. Vertical Replenishment). Lots could go wrong, and if it did it was going to do some serious damage. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 I sure hope so...because the older airframes were just ponderous leviathons that put the fear of death into crews during surface ship flight ops (e.g. Vertical Replenishment). Lots could go wrong, and if it did it was going to do some serious damage. Twice the lift with the K model apparently...new engines. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 Twice the lift with the K model apparently...new engines. Good...cause that's the deal killer...asking the pilots and loadmaster to operate on the very edge of the design margin / safe operating envelope. Canada tries to get too much out of one airframe it would seem. These things are designed to do certain things under certain conditions.....altitude and temperature matter! In many respects, a chopper pilot needs better / different skills than those needed for fixed wing. 10,000 parts vibrating in formation! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
M.Dancer Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 10,000 parts vibrating in formation! A machine trying to rip itself apart Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
DogOnPorch Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 It's not due until 2015...so we'll see. It's not like Canada's buying any anyways. We probably have our eyes on this baby for heavy-lift & troop transport. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 It's not due until 2015...so we'll see. It's not like Canada's buying any anyways.We probably have our eyes on this baby for heavy-lift & troop transport. LOL! Just don't forget the basics..... “All rotary craft have to consider the [4 H's] -- heat, humidity, height, heavy (how much load)" Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shakeyhands Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 Maybe if I use really small words...There is a big bird thing, see, called a Bell. It's used by the traffic reporters. Now there is a military version - far more expensive, far more surviveable. It's called a Huey. The Griffon is NOT a military version or variant of the Huey. It is a varient of the CIVILIAN bird. Okay? Good for traffic, not so good for being shot at. Jeebus.... Please outline the differences between the 212 and the 412... I need some help apparently. I can tell you that besides the number of rotor blades, and a slighty smaller airframe, updated engine (of the same type btw..) these are almost exactly the same bird. also, please look up the word variant. thanks. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
DogOnPorch Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 LOL! Just don't forget the basics.....“All rotary craft have to consider the [4 H's] -- heat, humidity, height, heavy (how much load)" I remember reading in Chickenhawk how the Hueys would have to do the forward bounce if the temperature got above 90 with high humidity (Viet-Nam). Dangerous stuff. Clearing LZs with the main rotor is also not recommended. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
M.Dancer Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 Jeebus.... Please outline the differences between the 212 and the 412... I need some help apparently. I can tell you that besides the number of rotor blades, and a slighty smaller airframe, updated engine (of the same type btw..) these are almost exactly the same bird. also, please look up the word variant. thanks. Maybe you mean the 412 and the Huey !! Different engines, armour.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 I remember reading in Chickenhawk how the Hueys would have to do the forward bounce if the temperature got above 90 with high humidity (Viet-Nam). Dangerous stuff. Clearing LZs with the main rotor is also not recommended. ...and no nifty Martin ejection seat. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 ...and no nifty Martin ejection seat. Auto-rotate is supposed to accomplish that.......crunch. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Shakeyhands Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 Maybe you mean the 412 and the Huey !!Different engines, armour.... either or, the 212 is a UH-1 varient Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
M.Dancer Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 either or, the 212 is a UH-1 varient HUEY !! Vne 240 km/hr; 130 kts Max Cruise 212 km/hr; 115 kts Max Gross Wt. 4762 kg; 10,500 lbs Range 469 km; 253 nm IGE Hover (MGW) 3660 m; 12,000 ft OGE Hover (MGW) 1710 m; 5,600 ft Service Ceiling 16,000 ft + Bell 412 Maximum Gross Weight External 11900 lb 5398 kg Useful Load Standard VFR 5039 lb 2286 kg Max External 4500 lb 2041 kg Internal 5068 lb 2299 kg Speed & Range Max Cruise Speed 122 kn 226 km/h Maximum Range 356 nm 659 km There you go... http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en/aircraft/...2_prodSpecs.cfm Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Remiel Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 And of course, the ultimate taboo in Canada, we would need to develop our own nuclear weapons program, as such weapons are of course the ultimate deterrent and thus make the necessity for actual defense much less likely. I think responding to you is some sort of jinx, Bonam, because I have lost my God damned post again... So, here it is again in point form: 1. The United States has a sufficient nuclear arsenal to cover our needs. 2. There is no realistic scenario in which launching a nuclear weapon on populated Canadian territory would not, given the proximity to the United States, also constitute an attack on the United States. 3. Therefore, there is no scenario in which Canada would be part of a nuclear exchange and the United States would not. 4. Nuclear weapons cost a lot of money in the hopes that you never have to use them. 5. Instead of spending a lot of money on something we cannot use and that our allies have the market cornered on, we would be better off on spending our money on non-nuclear armaments and technologies sufficient to protect us against other non-nuclear forces. 6. That way, we could actually add something to the alliance that it does not have enough or too much of. You know, and be useful, instead of useless. 7. Some of these premises may resemble ones in which some try to argue we do not need conventional forces because the United States will protect us. Exept that in the case of nuclear warfare, they are completely true, or at least probably to a degree in which it would be irrational to act as if they were not. Quote
Wilber Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 10,000 parts vibrating in formation! True of any helicopter. Eons ago when I was taking aircraft maintenance at tech shool, our helicopter instructor described helicopter maintenance as "putting them back together faster than they shook themselves to pieces." Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Bonam Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 1. The United States has a sufficient nuclear arsenal to cover our needs. Like you said in your point #7, this applies just as well to their non-nuclear arsenal as well. 2. There is no realistic scenario in which launching a nuclear weapon on populated Canadian territory would not, given the proximity to the United States, also constitute an attack on the United States. Nuclear weapons aren't only to respond against nuclear attack. They are to deter such attack in the first place, and also to deter conventional, non-nuclear attack. Furthermore, the focus seems to be on arctic sovereignty, and any use of weapons in that region, whether nuclear or non-nuclear, is likely to be far away enough from the US that it would in fact not constitute an attack on the US. 3. Therefore, there is no scenario in which Canada would be part of a nuclear exchange and the United States would not. Do we accept being 100% dependent on the United States in such a scenario? If the United States was part of a nuclear exchange, they may very well be too busy at the moment to devote their full attention to our problems. 4. Nuclear weapons cost a lot of money in the hopes that you never have to use them. I'd rather pay for a weapon who's mere existence means it never has to be used than a weapon that has to be constantly employed. Never having to use them is precisely their intention, and why they are worth every penny. Mutual Assured Destruction kept the US and the USSR from direct confrontation with each over for over 40 years, potentially saving hundreds of millions of lives. 5. Instead of spending a lot of money on something we cannot use and that our allies have the market cornered on, we would be better off on spending our money on non-nuclear armaments and technologies sufficient to protect us against other non-nuclear forces. The only forces that could realistically threaten us within the territory of Canada are forces that are themselves capable of deploying nuclear weapons. Furthermore, as time passes, the number of nations possessing nuclear weapons will only increase. As such it is pointless to equip ourselves to fight only non-nuclear forces. If our only goal is to be able to fight dudes in caves, then sure, we don't need nukes. But if we want to be able to independently guarantee the sovereignty and security of all of Canada's territory, we need a full array of the most modern armaments and equipment, which includes nuclear deterrent. 6. That way, we could actually add something to the alliance that it does not have enough or too much of. You know, and be useful, instead of useless. We should be contributing meaningfully to the alliance anyway, but still also have the capability to ensure our own security independently of the alliance. 7. Some of these premises may resemble ones in which some try to argue we do not need conventional forces because the United States will protect us. Exept that in the case of nuclear warfare, they are completely true, or at least probably to a degree in which it would be irrational to act as if they were not. They also seem true with regards to conventional weapons. Either we decide that we want to be able to defend ourselves, which means getting modern equipment including nuclear weapons, or we decide that we will rely on the US and NATO to defend us, in which case we can keep going with our small and sub-optimally equipped military. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.