Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,755
- Points
- 1,160
Would the P-8 based on the 737 be gravel runway capable? If so that means they could land to refuel and rest in the arctic, during the summer months.
CP-140 Aurora
- Thread starter cplcaldwell
- Start date
A
aesop081
Guest
WPA said:support for the ground troops. :
Roll you eyes all you want. This is part of the LRP mission in this country and in many others.
Some say Astor project for the UK bases on the Global Express from Bombardier as late and over due. [/quote]
It is late. ASTOR is not the solution for us.
:
At the very least, some of us here know what the box looks like because we work in and around the box.
You will notice that i am not taking my lessons on MPAs from AW&ST
CDN Aviator said:
I think that you're arguing with my wife.
She accepts everything that she sees in print or on the internet regardless of source, relevance, or nuttiness over my real-world experience too.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
I always thought of AW&ST as a very good magazine regards military equipment ??
Mind you Jane's is tops.
Mind you Jane's is tops.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Baden Guy said:
They all have their share of errors that you will find if you look hard enough.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Probably not.
The 737-200 had a very simple and cheap gravel kit you could install. It consisted of a big deflector skid attached to the nosegear, protection for all the exposed hydraulics and wiring in the wheel wells, sacrificial covering for the flaps, and bleed-air vents on the underside of the intakes to break up the vortices that suck rocks off the ground.
So far as I am aware, no-one has developed such a kit for the NG-series 737, of which the P-8 is a part. It would be simple and technically straightforward, but the certification cost would be enormous, and the legal liability would be crippling. If you make a kit that allows people to land on crappy gravel strips, then you are legally responsible for the safety of all the idiots who then use your kit to land on crappy gravel strips.
Since the USN has no shortage of pavement, and no private company will shoulder the liability, the CF would likely have to develop it in-house. The P-8 will also have all sorts of fancy, fragile, and expensive dielectric panels and antennae on the belly, as well as stores hanging on pylons. These are still going to take rocks, even with a kit, so landing on gravel would get really expensive really quickly. And by the time a gravel kit was developed, tested, and fielded, it would probably have been cheaper and ultimately more useful just to pave an extra runway or two in the arctic.
A
aesop081
Guest
Colin P said:
Whats wrong with the way we do it now ?
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,755
- Points
- 1,160
Foverf , thank you for the excellent post on gravel runways, I had forgotten that the underside would be cluttered with extra goodies.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Unfortunately, paving a runway in the Arctic is not as simple as it sounds. Once paved, the black asphalt heats up so much that the underlying permafrost melts and the runway sinks into the ground. That is why most northern runways remain gravel surfaced.
Paving runways in the Arctic/permafrost zone is technically rather easy, but very expensive. A lot of permafrost has to removed and a lot of aggregate, clean aggregate of the correct sizes needs to be put under the pavement to create a thermal break. Quite a few very nice paved runways were built back in the day with this technique.
Frobisher Bay/Iqaluit is a good example, Ft. Chimo/Kuujjuaq/YVP is another that comes to mind
Long time ago I was a DEW Liner and my job was to survey all the gravel strips, including core sampling the permafrost (Perigellic Cryaquaept for any soil dudes out there) calculating the volume of aggregate required, looking for the right aggregate sources and then filing reports that never got read.
Fun Job, great money and I still love my Dew Line Wine
Of course nowadays there would be hundreds of Enviro groups lined up to save the whatever species from destruction that would complicate the matter
Frobisher Bay/Iqaluit is a good example, Ft. Chimo/Kuujjuaq/YVP is another that comes to mind
Long time ago I was a DEW Liner and my job was to survey all the gravel strips, including core sampling the permafrost (Perigellic Cryaquaept for any soil dudes out there) calculating the volume of aggregate required, looking for the right aggregate sources and then filing reports that never got read.
Fun Job, great money and I still love my Dew Line Wine
Of course nowadays there would be hundreds of Enviro groups lined up to save the whatever species from destruction that would complicate the matter
A
aesop081
Guest
benny88 said:
Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Iqualuit, Inuvik..........paved runways. Seems to work just fine operating out of those locations.
CDN Aviator said:Roll you eyes all you want. This is part of the LRP mission in this country and in many others.
That Funny. You still did not answer the question/ statement that a Reaper UAV is the Better and First Choice to use. (Many countries including the US, UK, Italy etc.) Countries are buying the UAV.
Some say Astor project for the UK bases on the Global Express from Bombardier as late and over due.
It is late. ASTOR is not the solution for us.
Yes late just like most gov. projects around the world for many countries. I never said that the ASTOR is a solution for Canada i said the CRJ could and should be promoted as platform for such technology.
:
At the very least, some of us here know what the box looks like because we work in and around the box.
Are you stating the Country of Israel does not know what the box look like? Are you stating Israel does not have a prov-en track record of thinking out the box coming up with new tactics in warfare and the use of technology like UAVs and armour and coastal patrols that have been adopted around the world.
You still failed to stated that if there is a market a medium size MPA and AEW aircraft of the size of CRJ.
If there is a market are you saying Canadian business and Canadian Government should not look at option of building the product?
You also failed to state how big of a fleet of P-8s Canada afford not just purchase of the aircraft, but also operation cost of just doing the normal patrols?
Patrol of CP-140 have been canceled recently for lack of funds.
You will notice that i am not taking my lessons on MPAs from AW&ST
Not worth to comment
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
WPA said:
Ya, why listen to someone who actually works in the field... :
A
aesop081
Guest
Quote from WPA
No, they have not.
Nice.
I dont give a rat's behind if there is a market for a mediumsize MPA. Thats Bombardier's problem. If they want to build one thats their decision and has nothing to do with the Canadian government.. What the CF needs is a long-range multi-mission LRPA to replace the CP-140.
Isreal develops systems that meets its needs. We need something that meets ours. If those things match, great. But Israel does not have anything close to our operating requirements.
10 aircraft minimum. How much its going to cost, i dont know. What can Canada afford i dont know. Thats a political decision. What i do know is that buying an aircraft that provides less capabilities than what we have now is not the way to go. And of course, when you speak of "normal patrols" you continue to demonstrate that you have no idea what the CP-140 currently does.
No, they have not.
Nice.
I dont give a rat's behind if there is a market for a mediumsize MPA. Thats Bombardier's problem. If they want to build one thats their decision and has nothing to do with the Canadian government.. What the CF needs is a long-range multi-mission LRPA to replace the CP-140.
Isreal develops systems that meets its needs. We need something that meets ours. If those things match, great. But Israel does not have anything close to our operating requirements.
10 aircraft minimum. How much its going to cost, i dont know. What can Canada afford i dont know. Thats a political decision. What i do know is that buying an aircraft that provides less capabilities than what we have now is not the way to go. And of course, when you speak of "normal patrols" you continue to demonstrate that you have no idea what the CP-140 currently does.
FoverF said:
I am not questioning the sensors or weapons of the aircraft.
All i am stating is that we could use others platform that could be used.
development of the mission equipment package has already been design contracted out with the CP-140 upgrades.
Plus i am sure i will be blasted for saying there is a difference development costs mission equipment and intergration costs on a aircraft.
For example most of the cost for the ASTOR aircraft is for the radar hardware, software and ground station and not the integration cost on the aircraft.
NO the ASTOR is not my suggestion as a cheaper alternative to the P-8choice .
The US cannot afford to replace each P-3 for a P-8 it is more like every 2 to 3 P-3 for each P-8.
How could Canada afford a fleet large enough to do the job 18 to 20 aircraft.
Also the operating cost for the large jet maybe to much for the DND budget.
On DND budget already has:
JSS
halifax refit
sub refit
new tanks
UAV's
the Artic deep port
Artic underwater sensor system proposed
CF-18 upgrades
CP-140 upgrades
Tow missile purchase
130J purchase
C17 purchase
CH-47 purchase
apov purchase
new polar icebreaker(CCG budget but has i high cost to build)
777 gun
purchase of new truck fleet for the forces
There is the need to start, continue or restart the programs to replace the following and the money for it:
New fighter aircraft
new derstroiers
new frigates
new subs
new maritime patrol air craft
next generation of LAV's and TLAV
etc....
Now some of this has already been paid for or money set aside for the purchace.
However in the eyes of the voters this does not matter. If they feel that the enough money is spent on the military then things can change very quickly.
Face it the liberals proved this last time in power. The military was given just enough to look like progress was being made with some of the project that i list above.
The Conservatives did great progress to improve the Army and Air force with purchases they made. Most of this purchases are on the low end of the price tag for new procurements i mention above. Plus the Conservatives are already say we need to be careful in spending money for the budgets for the next little while.
However most of the really big price items still need to be taken care of before thing get really bad like the seakings, AOR ship, subs, trucks etc....
The equipment are rusted out, high maintenance cost for every hour of flight or simply the lost of the capability completely.
Other words there is going to be some tough choice to be made.
Plus i am not the only one out there would like to know?
PS i support spending money on the military.
A
aesop081
Guest
WPA said:
I still dont care for your statement and if you have a problem with mine then state why you have a problem. You came in here debating with "i read in (insert magazine name) " and i am responding to you based on my real world experience in this field and so have others.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I hate to break it to you, but you're going to have a lot more to do than 'integration' if you want a CRJ to carry crew stations, surveillance radar, FLIR, a spotlight, an ESM suite, a couple thousand pounds of MAD gear (that doesn't like having hundreds of pounds of computers humming right next to it, hence why it's usually in a LONG tail boom), sonobouy dispensers, an internal weapons bay, four hardpoints on a wing that was never designed to carry any, a new navigation system, SATCOMs and any other fancy radios you need, a whole new (probably NVG-compatible) cockpit, electronic hardening for all the sparky bits that are sitting right next to each other, hopefully some ECM and DIRCM, and an in-flight refuelling system. For starters, you're going to need a second airframe to carry half of the systems (and probably a third airframe to carry the gas for the first 2).
And it costs Bombardier millions of dollars to develop a new inlet de-icing system, do you have any idea what they would charge us for THIS?
Israel also had to spend untold BILLIONS, and more than a decade, developing the Phalcon radar before hand. We're talking BIG money. This project has also been in the works for a LONG time. This kind of capability cannot be done on the cheap, or on the quick. It would be a miracle if Canada even managed to get an off-the-shelf system.
Allright, I heard you out. This is still a bad idea. The A310 can do a decent job as a tanker because it has a 136,000 lb useful load. A CRJ900, even without IFR equipment, has around 32,000 lbs. See the difference?
It cost Boeing, Raytheon, and Northrop-Grumman US$3.98 billion (SDD contract) to make a sub-chaser out of the world's most-produced, most oft-modified, and most widely supported airliner. This is a project that is, quite simply, way outside of Bombardier's league.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
WPA said:
WPA,
I welcome your support for military spending, but we can't spend without good thinking and good planning. Your CRJ proposal just doesn't wash.
You need to understand something of crucial importance. The CRJ cannot meet Canada's patrol aircraft needs. Here is an analogy that I hope you will understand. You cannot take a Ford Tempo and make it into a M-1 Abrams. You can try, but at the end of the day all you are going to have is a very heavy Ford Tempo that can't do the military job you are asking of it. The owner of the Ford Tempo has to spend his money wisely and sometimes it is just better to go and buy the M-1 Abrams. If he wants to try and strap a big gun on his Tempo, and make it be able to fight and win in combat, he better have deep pockets to field the kind of engineering and design challenge that he will face. And make no mistake, Ford won't make these engineering changes for him. He has to spend the coin. To put the analogy into the context of a new long range patrol aircraft , if we made the CRJ into the new Candian LRPA, Canada would be trying to convert that Tempo into an Abrams. That would be a stupid, stupid, stupid, decision.
So why can't the CRJ do the LRPA role? The CRJ is a comparitively lightweight, narrow body passenger jet that is a modification of the Bombardier Challenger business jet. The CRJ was stretched and modified to meet the passenger jet role, and to make this happen the design has already been adjusted and tweaked to the limit of it's capability. The result is a jet optimized for high altitude transits. The wing loading is high, which limits the weight the aircraft can carry and limits the aircraft's ability to make high bank and high G manouevres. It has no weapons bay, and its engines are not optimized for military roles. It has a weak electrical generation system, and it does not have military specification redundancies that are needed for combat operations. In my opinion (I am afraid I am as close to beig an expert as is possible), it would make a horrible military aircraft and it would not last very long in the environment we would operate it in.
Lastly, a country like Canada cannot afford to do large scale "from the ground up" development of a military aircraft. Bombardier is a business, and it is not in the habit of throwing money down the toilet. So if Bombardier won't assume the risk of doing the billions of dollars in R&D for your project, who will? The government will have to assume all that risk on Bombardier's behalf. The development of the CRJ as a long range patrol aircraft would be represent a very deep sinkhole for the Canadian government. This is not smart.
So why not do something smart instead. The US government is funding the development of a robust and highly proven airframe to make the P-8. The 737 is a strong, powerful and exceptional reliable airplane, not a stretched to the limit hybrid of a business jet like the CRJ. They USN is fronting all the R&D costs, and when the design has been proven and the risks associated with the venture have been eliminated, the US government is more than willing to sell us the plane at production cost. This makes great feduciary sense; the CRJ LRPA, not so much.
Please don't misundestand me; I welcome your ideas and your keen support for a new LRPA. But the CRJ is, pure and simple, a bad choice. Being a cynic, becuase it is such a bad choice I can assume that it's probably just what the government will end up buying.
Bart
Similar threads
