[Scape]

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/airship/

[Gunnair]

Scape wrote:

[web]http://www.blackwaterusa.com/airship/[/web]

Nice. Would look sweeter with a maple leaf.

[Canadian_Mind]

At first I was advocating a mass-purchase of Nimrod aircraft in the 30-40 range, but I also liek the idea of airships. Maybe a smaller number of Nimrods on the order of 12-15, 4 or 5 for each coastline. Then purchase another 6-8 Airships which would constantly be on patrol over the arctic that have a very long endurance (100 hours or more).

[Chips66]

BartSimpson wrote:

Bombadier gets my vote just because it'd be nice to see the CF use homegrown kit.

What he said, homegrown all the way!!

[Loader]

Flying crewed aircraft for costal patrol/surveillance is not cost effective nor particularly efficient with current UAV camera technology, and planned future air to air refuelling capability.

The MQ-9 Reaper (originally the RQ-9 Predator B) is used by the USAF, USN and the British RAF. The MQ-9 is a purpose-designed hunter-killer UAV designed for long-endurance, high-altitude surveillance. This makes it ideal for costal patrol as well as deployments in theatre, and a single fleet is cost effective in terms of vehicle pricing, parts replacement and training programs for pilots and maintainers. The general characteristics of the Reaper show that it is more than up to the task and a bargain at a cost of about 8 million US apiece.

The Airship idea is good, but could not be used as a weapons platform in theatre, or retrofitted for ASW work, as could a UAV/TUAV.

Ceiling: 50,000 ft (15 km)
Endurance: 15 h
Range: 3682 mi (3200 nautical miles)
Fuel Capacity: 1,300 kg (3,907 lb)
Length: 11 m (36 ft)
Payload: 1700 kg (3800 lb)
Weight: 1676 kg (3700 lb) empty; 4760 kg (10,500 lb) max
Wingspan: 20 m (66 ft)
Velocity: 400 km/h (250 mph, 220 knots)

[saturn_656]

Canadian_Mind wrote:

At first I was advocating a mass-purchase of Nimrod aircraft in the 30-40 range, but I also liek the idea of airships. Maybe a smaller number of Nimrods on the order of 12-15, 4 or 5 for each coastline. Then purchase another 6-8 Airships which would constantly be on patrol over the arctic that have a very long endurance (100 hours or more).

You do know that they don't actually build Nimrods anymore right? Haven't for a few decades or so.

Kinda makes me wonder why the individual who created the poll thinks the Nimrod is actually an option for Canada.

[-Mario-]

Canada is keeping its CP-140s Auroras a little while longer. We will go thru all the required upgrades and We are not expecting a new replacement until 2020. We might get new UAVs to supplement the Auroras role, but this is up to our government.

[Canadian_Mind]

saturn_656 wrote:

Canadian_Mind wrote:

At first I was advocating a mass-purchase of Nimrod aircraft in the 30-40 range, but I also liek the idea of airships. Maybe a smaller number of Nimrods on the order of 12-15, 4 or 5 for each coastline. Then purchase another 6-8 Airships which would constantly be on patrol over the arctic that have a very long endurance (100 hours or more).

You do know that they don't actually build Nimrods anymore right? Haven't for a few decades or so.

Kinda makes me wonder why the individual who created the poll thinks the Nimrod is actually an option for Canada.

the latest nimrods were refurbishments of old aircraft, basically to upgrade and standardise them al ver aain. No reason why more airframes couldn't be prduced, and the modern technology applied to them as they were to the refurbished/rebuilt nimrods.

[commanderkai]

Gunnair wrote:

Scape wrote:

[web]http://www.blackwaterusa.com/airship/[/web]

Nice. Would look sweeter with a maple leaf.

Even better, add Goodyear on the side, and just let it do its thing. The confusion would be amazing

"WTF? THE GOODYEAR BLIMP IS BOMBING US!"



Okay, seriously, Bombardier with UAV support would be the best. Let's get a Canadian aerospace defense industry again

[-Mario-]

Nimrods are not for sale.

They are the good old Comet inspired airframe modified with an ASW avionics package. THey MR4 are a full life time retrofit. Along with giving it this bird new engines and a new state of the art avionics package, this 39 year old bird has to have some structural reinforcement.

[Can2]

I like airships, how are their stealth characteristics? They are nice and roomy and tend to stay up in the sky. I think most of their accidents happen when they try to "land". They should just stay up and we could shuttle provisions up to them.

On a more realistic note, a Canadian solution (Bombardier Sentinel R1) is (RAF) proven ready to go.
Its missions would have to be surveillance centered and this would be a problem. Anti-submarine role would have to be given over to a dedicated aircraft. Not having an all-in-one solution would be a better solution cost wise. With the new heavier demand for northern surveillance we will need greater hours in the sky and maintenance costs on the all-in-one Aurora would just be to high. We could likely refurbish 6 Auroras from the 18 for this role.

[Can2]

Bombardier's new C-series jet looks just perfect for replacing the anti-submarine coastal patrol role. I do believe we should also have a smaller (cheaper) jet recon for the many more hours the arctic will now demand. Let us price out 18 C-series and 8 Sentinel R1.

[Chips66]

Can2 wrote:

Bombardier's new C-series jet looks just perfect for replacing the anti-submarine coastal patrol role. I do believe we should also have a smaller (cheaper) jet recon for the many more hours the arctic will now demand. Let us price out 18 C-series and 8 Sentinel R1.

Not a bad idea! Canadian made C-series!!

[saturn_656]

Boeing P-8 would be my preferred option for the following reasons:

1) The Nimrod and Kawasaki are not for sale.

2) I don't think UAV's are ready to take over the role entirely from manned aircraft.

3) R-1 not designed to carry a weapons payload.

4) I hate EADS, they have screwed Canada before and I don't feel we should give them any business.

Boeing by default.

[DoyleG]

I agree with saturn_656. UAV's can't carry the load on their own. More than likely they would be used for more internal operations than full-blown maritime missions.