Jump to content

Canadian Defence News


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Both the F-35B and F-35C use probe and drogue refuelling, hard to believe the F-35A couldn't be ordered that way. Also, probe and drogue allows two aircraft to be refuelled at the same time. The USAF uses boom and the USN uses probe and drogue. Also, helicopters can't use a boom.

 

I guess one advantage is our tankers could refuel USAF aircraft.

F-35A is built for the USAF which only uses boom

boom refuels way faster than drogue, negating the need for two at a time

boom is also safer and more reliable

helicopters are too low and slow to refuel from an Airbus

only K/MC-130 can refuel rotorcraft in an operational setting

helicopter IFR is a Special Operation, the RCAF is not equipped and does not train for it

Edited by Dougie93
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

.

The P-8 uses a B737-800 airframe.

the P-8 is not a conversion of a civil aircraft

it's not a 737-800 rebuilt into a P-8

P-8's are custom built mil spec from the ground up

the only commonality with the -800 is the length of the fuselage

Edited by Dougie93
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Besides Your argument is like when people say “why is the city filling potholes when there are still homeless people and on the streets?”  Governments must be able to address more than one problem at a time and our decrepit and diminished Polaris fleet is one of those problems 

I simply know that the resources of DND are finite

so Justin Trudeau's flying limousine should not be the priority

since this money will be inevitably coming out of the army budget to pay for that

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

the P-8 is not a conversion of a civil aircraft

it's not a 737-800 rebuilt into a P-8

P-8's are custom built mil spec from the ground up

the only commonality with the -800 is the length of the fuselage

According to Boeings own website:

 

The P-8 shares 86% commonality with the commercial 737NG,

5 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

I simply know that the resources of DND are finite

so Justin Trudeau's flying limousine should not be the priority

since this money will be inevitably coming out of the army budget to pay for that

But what about the aircraft to transport for your beloved royals?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

F-35A is built for the USAF which only uses boom

boom refuels way faster than drogue, negating the need for two at a time

boom is also safer and more reliable

helicopters are too low and slow to refuel from an Airbus

only K/MC-130 can refuel rotorcraft in an operational setting

helicopter IFR is a Special Operation, the RCAF is not equipped and does not train for it

I think all the NATO countries with refuelling use probe and drogue. Wonder if any of them are buying F-35A's. I think the USAF is the only one using boom refuelling. The KC-10 and KC-46 can do both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

the RAF doesn't even operate its A330's, they are leased from a civilian company

I believe only 2 of the 14 are leased the rest are RAF

 

18 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Justin Trudeau just wants a fancier plane to fly around on at the taxpayers expense

Bullsh1t he is not the one pushing this, that kind dishonest politicization is why 24 Sussex was allowed to fall into disrepair  

You are overly focused on front end combat equipment, strategic airlift and refuelling is a core capability even if it’s not sexy 

As for the P-8, many of the missions for that “multi-mission” aircraft are domestic, or are unarmed/low threat and don’t need a big expensive B737 at 40,000 feet  For example, circling above a Manitoba flood to take photos and relay communications between agencies on the ground. Or patrolling our waters for illegal fishing and maritime polluting. A Bizjet platform would be a more economical option for those types of missions but can still carry a combat payload for medium threat/deterrence missions. So you would still have P-8s but also a more practical and cost efficient option for the smaller jobs where a combat payload of around 6 missiles/torpedoes instead of 12 will do.  

Check out the Saab Swordfish for example 

 

 

Now I think the way to do that without adding to fleet management / training complications is to also replace the 4-plane Challenger VIP fleet with the same Bizjet platform  

The Saab Swordfish is based on a Bombardier G6000 but Bombardier is pitching the 6500 for the Canadian MMA project   Both the 6000 and 6500 are already in military use around the world in a variety of similar roles (AWACS, EW, communications) including in the USAF which just recently purchased 6500s to use as its BACN platform. Plus civilian versions are plentiful and the globe for parts and worldwide support.  As long as they don’t do anything stupid like try to put an internal weapons bay on it, this aircraft is already a proven platform  

 

The P-8s main advantage over Bizjet alternatives is that it can lob a dozen cruise missiles at China from a safe distance whereas Bizjet platforms can only carry a few missiles/torpedoes  Also with a 10-person mission crew instead of 5 it can theoretically carry out more missions during a single sortie but that’s not always going to be needed. 

Edited by BeaverFever
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

I think all the NATO countries with refuelling use probe and drogue. Wonder if any of them are buying F-35A's. I think the USAF is the only one using boom refuelling. The KC-10 and KC-46 can do both.

most NATO and NNMA countries are buying F-35A

they will all have to buy boom  tankers to refuel them

the reality is tho, in the event of war,

these countries would be relying heavily on USAF tankers  anyways

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Aristides said:

One problem with the Swordfish G6000 is the lack of an internal weapons bay. I wonder about it's range claims carrying a full weapons load on underwing hard points.

I would not support putting an internal weapons bay on that aircraft which is what bombardier is currently proposing for the Canadian aircraft (because RCAF lists that as a requirement). That is a an airframe modification that will open up a can of worms of testing, unintended consequences and delays/cost overruns.  Something similar happened recently with the newly purchased Kingfisher SAR aircraft. The RCAF wanted the landing gear to be fully enclosed when the aircraft is in flight as the aircraft was only designed to have simply sit partially exposed in a recess. It sounds simple but ended up causing all kinds of engineering problems that AFAIK have still not been solved. 
 

In my mind the “swordfish” option would be would be used more for littoral and shorter range/tactical missions anyway so I would be ok with trading off a little bit of endurance with external weapon mounts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

According to Boeings own website:

The P-8 shares 86% commonality with the commercial 737NG,

unlike A330, the P-8 is not a converted airliner

it's a milspec purrpose built airframe

you can tell by the fact that there are no passenger windows

First-P-8A-Poseidon-MPA-to-Norway-scaled

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2023 at 5:02 AM, Dougie93 said:

the military states that it is in a personnel crisis, more than 10,000 under strength

and there are shortages of basic equipment such as uniforms, sleeping bags & helmets

so this is like your house is falling down

but you go out an buy 9 Rolls Royce's to park in the driveway

typical Canada

If we ever get anyone in the military there will be planes to fly them around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

DSC_0004-edit-1024x545.jpg

OMG, that's so f'ing Canadian I wanna puke. 

I wanna photoshop that and put "Spy Plane" where it says "Surveillance" lol.

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

who would want to serve in the lunatic leftist Woke military ?

they'd better start recruiting from the Gender Studies programs in the Commie Universities

If the godless commies in Russia and China use the wrong pronouns they won't know what hit them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

it's basically the Coast Guard surveillance platform, CG being Transport Canada

Do other nations have bright red planes that say "SURVEILLANCE" on them? 

Honest to God that looks like something from an episode of Trailer Park Boys. 

All of a sudden I wanna get a pilot's license, a plane, paint it red, and write "Surveillance" on the bottom of it. 

I'll just be laughing my ass off thinking about all the people burning down their marijuana crops and destroying all kinds of other evidence as I fly overhead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Did you put a tape over your webcam? You should. Even the FSB Snowden, former NSA traitor said to do it.

I was gonna answer that, then I got a knock on my door from CSIS.

I have a couple of gender-neutral persons in a headlock right now, just give me a minute....

*BIF*

*BAM*

*BOOM*

*KAPOW*

*SMACK*

"OOOOH! NOT THE NIPPLES!"

*CLANG!*

"WE'RE OUTTA HERE!"

 

Pregnant pause...

 

 

OK, what was the question again? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

unlike A330, the P-8 is not a converted airliner

it's a milspec purrpose built airframe

you can tell by the fact that there are no passenger windows

First-P-8A-Poseidon-MPA-to-Norway-scaled

No one is saying they are converted airliners, they are based on an airliner. Purpose built freighters don't have windows. A purpose built B747 freighter won't have windows on the main deck, converted aircraft will have blanked out windows. Still the same airframe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

I am going to the synagogue 7 pm to 8 pm to pray to God, so why the lies?

"We" are godless here, boy?

When is the last time you went to a Church? 

Jesus of Nazareth never spoke of "Church"

the word "Church" does not appear in the New Testament at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Is this your justification not to be in a place of God?

I am going, after I finish this whiskey will go listen for 1h to a rabbi, to try and calm the animal inside.

What do you do to calm the animal inside?

there is no mention of "Church" in the Bible

it is an invention of man, not God

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,745
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    historyradio.org
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • User went up a rank
      Experienced
    • exPS went up a rank
      Contributor
    • DUI_Offender earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • exPS went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Rising Star
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...