|
The current government doesn’t really seem to think take national security seriously at all. They went all in on the idea that opening up international trade prevents war and are still clinging to that as reality keeps making fools of them.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2023 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:46 |
|
|
I just had another visit from the Red Baron. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
Maybe a student pilot getting training on engine-out emergency procedures?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2023 20:37
|
|
|
Not with that bank angle at that altitude, nope.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2023 21:06
|
|
|
MrChips posted:As much as I am down on Boeing these days, buying P-8s was the right move in this case. It's a proven aircraft flown by a ton of militaries now, that is good in its role and very cost-effective. There is no credible reason to entertain Bombardier's assertion that their completely non-existent Global 6000-based ASW aircraft was the right choice instead; all that was, was just the grift industry kicking into high gear and riling up the press about the government making the "wrong" - read, not our product - decision. Yeah, while I still think the motives behind the decision were real dumb, I'm with you on this that the decision is going to produce a good outcome, and I'm embarrassed to admit the flood of objections made me think there was more to it. So, dumb question about the P-8: does it have overland surveillance capabilities? Just reading about the CP-140, it seems like while Maritime and ASW patrol is still used, it seems like the aircraft were used just as much for overland surveillance - which was why the CP-140As were a thing in the first place. I can imagine a very dumb scenario where the perfectly functional P-8 is junked up into a nonfunctional nightmare by Ottawa bureaucrats trying to make it "do what the CP-140 did." Actually, doesn't Bombardier work with Rayethon to make a biz jet that does those things? Also lol, just in case I wasn't clear, I was NEVER for the Bombardier thing - aside from any other reason, it's in the planning stages. God only knows if it will work when it comes time to retire the CP-140s. While were here, though, ask Airbus if they can whip up a A220 with a CP-140's surveillance capabilities hobbesmaster posted:The Canadian government isn’t truly interested in maintaining domestic capabilities and hasn’t been since… the 50s? They let their aviation and shipbuilding industries (almost) completely die. They kept tossing some money at bombardier for some time but never treated it as a true strategic need to maintain. You're wrong - in your timeframe. It should be noted first that in between America: we can source everything domestically and, say, Suriname: we can source nothing domestically, walking the line of keeping some indiginous defense industry while sourcing other things from other nations is genuinely tricky and complex, with no real easy answers. France seems to have walked that line quite well, as has Japan. The UK seems to have walked that line poorly, Russia and Germany seem to have walked that line very badly. So WW2 Canada got through kinda like the Swedes - everything worked out in the end, but that was not because Canada was brilliant on defense in the leadup. Pre-WW2, Canada was extremely laissez-faire in its procurement decisions, assuming, not without reason, that if they ever needed anything, they could buy from America or the UK. The Second World War demonstrated the flaws in this plan, with both nations suddenly too busy with their own needs to fill orders from Canada. This lead to a lot of pain in WW2 you will not see in a heritage minute; the Flower class corvettes was a naval militia ship that initially went to sea with dummy guns and depth charges, and thanks to silly fuckups in Ottawa, it was an embarrassingly long time before Canada could effectively suppress German U boats operating in its waters, with at one point the situation getting so bad that Britain and the US had to take over ASW patrol so the RCAF could do some more training - and get better airplanes. When long range B-24s arrived, the shoe was on the other foot, but these sorta failures kept Canada pretty sharp through, say, the 1950s and 1960s. Like other democracies the military functioned as a cadre to train lots more people when the force seemed to be needed. Post WW2, Aviation industry had been built up, and it was fairly easy to source stuff inside Canada or build aircraft under license, as there was a lot of industrial expertise in aviation. It's why Canadair could take a British Airliner and respec it as the Argus, for example. The CF-100 was a quite good aircraft for its time, and Canadair's version of the F-86 was considered the best version of the Sabre. Aviation was a success story - though as time went on and the cold war superpowers were spending the GDP of south America on new research and development, it was clear that for combat aircraft, anyway, buying from America was going to take over. Naval construction seems a lot more mixed. You need naval facilities to keep up what you have, but I don't think Canada even during the cold war could keep up a viable naval shipbuilding capability, especially when (much like aviation) most industrialized nations subsidized the poo poo out of shipbuilding. The real change was the post cold war, when the Fed abandoned any pretense for keeping any defense capabilities. From now on, they said, it was back to Laissez-faire. Close the naval architecture office, the Halifax class frigates (which were designed by said office) were the last. While such a thing was ignoring history, it was the style of the time. This is also when Canada seems to stop caring about Defense, as well. The infamous sea king debacle was during the 1990s after all. The discussion from here I think is why Canada stopped giving a poo poo, and how it is connected with a decline in the Federal Government, but that's beyond airplanes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2023 21:20
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So, dumb question about the P-8: does it have overland surveillance capabilities? According to wikipedia, yes. Specific details on what it can do probably get into  very quickly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2023 21:41
|
|
|
Fornax Disaster posted:I just had another visit from the Red Baron. I see Trevor’s influence is potent. Another taylorcrate about to end up as scrap metal and wood.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 19:21
|
|
|
today i remembered the burt rutan boomerang is real and strong and my friend. not my picture unfortunately
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 19:29
|
|
|
the milk machine posted:today i remembered the burt rutan boomerang is real and strong and my friend. not my picture unfortunately the reaction to this photo these days would probably be "nah, that's ai."
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 20:59
|
|
|
Would
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 00:13
|
|
|
charliemonster42 posted:I see Trevor’s influence is potent. Another taylorcrate about to end up as scrap metal and wood. What was the name of that guy that would film his completely insane landings until he had to take his videos down for the crimes of being terrible at aviation?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
Something Wagner? e: Jerry? Secondary Minimums guy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 20:41
|
|
|
captainOrbital posted:What was the name of that guy that would film his completely insane landings until he had to take his videos down for the crimes of being terrible at aviation? Trevor is the guy who intentionally bailed from his plane and crashed it. Jerry is the guy who flies within 200 feet of the bay bridge and lets the stall horn sing the song of its people on base to final.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 21:33
|
|
|
captainOrbital posted:What was the name of that guy that would film his completely insane landings until he had to take his videos down for the crimes of being terrible at aviation? jerry wagner. and yeah, it seems like the eye of sauron finally turned upon him and he got a 709 (airman competency reexamination) checkride. a few years ago suddenly all his videos where he was dive-bombing the field with a 60 degree turn to final in IMC were gone one day, nothing was posted for several months, and now he's back but the videos are totally average and he mostly does things safely and correctly. seems like for once the system worked. probably saved lives
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 21:39
|
|
|
 Yeah something tells me this is the dude of whom I was thinking
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 21:39
|
|
|
slidebite posted:True, but which all the more makes it shocking the Canadian government didn't go with Bombardier. The amazing thing is they didn't try to buy our old P-3s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 23:54
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The amazing thing is they didn't try to buy our old P-3s. Well apparently the turbine the CP-140 uses is getting hard to service/find parts for*, so I'm sure Canada was a benefactor of old P-3 parts *Something the Fed said that is quite possibly dumb
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 00:01
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:jerry wagner. All he had to do was post a video of a girl saying she felt safe flying with him and then the FAA would have emailed Jerry his license back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 01:00
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:jerry wagner. I'm just astonished he didn't crash before the system got around to working. Those landings were  , he was absolutely gonna Bud Holland it into the ground sooner or later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 01:07
|
|
|
Jerry is the safest of all pilots, for he has known unsafeness and rejected it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 01:11
|
|
|
Switching to secondary safeness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 01:13
|
|
|
Too close for minimums, switching to secondary minimums. *highway to the danger zone solo*
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 03:08
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Well apparently the turbine the CP-140 uses is getting hard to service/find parts for*, so I'm sure Canada was a benefactor of old P-3 parts The specific T56 variant that the CP-140 uses was apparently only used on P-3s so Godholio posted:The amazing thing is they didn't try to buy our old P-3s. If they used the same variant as a c-130 I bet they’d fly them for another few decades.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 04:55
|
|
|
Can someone help me confirm/deny something? I have it in my head that when the Netherlands started importing F-16s in the 70s, their flight computers somehow freaked out when they were flying below sea level, but I have not been able to find a source for this anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 12:13
|
|
|
I'd reckon it would be googled under parked/starting up/landing issues if it happened, did you try that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 12:22
|
|
|
I would be surprised if that story were true given that Southern California has areas below sea level. Here is an F-16 on a runway thirty‐five metres below the level of the sea, in 2010. Here are two parked in 2007.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 12:30
|
|
|
evobatman posted:Can someone help me confirm/deny something? I have it in my head that when the Netherlands started importing F-16s in the 70s, their flight computers somehow freaked out when they were flying below sea level, but I have not been able to find a source for this anywhere. "Freaked out" in that it wasn't possible to set the barometric correction low enough to get field elevation accurate if there were specific weather conditions. The altimeter is only required to be accurate to -1000ft, so if the density altitude correction puts you below that, then the baro computer "freaks out" and complains it's out of range. I think there was a software fix pushed, but the real answer was "if you're close to the ground, use Radar Altimeter" which was fine until the Israelis were doing something sketchy and the aircraft had to be radio silent about it. Then the "error" came up again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 14:13
|
|
|
I presume by "sketchy" you mean "bombing a nuclear reactor" iirc?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 15:29
|
|
|
In winter time we often see PA's way below sea level, so I don't think it was ever an issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 17:01
|
|
|
I'll assume the error was fixed very shortly after it was discovered many decades ago, so wouldn't expect it to be an issue today. Similar stuff does happen though https://www.itnews.com.au/news/stealth-fighters-hit-by-software-crash-74081
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 17:57
|
|
|
I don't know about F-16s but here's an example of similar problems in a C-130 https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a26598/c-130-sea-level-dead-sea/ The electronics in the plane actually were designed to work below sea level, but only down to -400 ft, perhaps because the lowest altitude airfield in the USA is -210 ft. Bar Yehuda in Israel is at -1200 ft. ImplicitAssembler posted:In winter time we often see PA's way below sea level, so I don't think it was ever an issue. This seems like a lower-level problem. Like maybe the navigation software can handle a calculated PA or DA way below sea level, as determined by pressure and temperature, but it has trouble when the inputs (GPS presumably) indicate that it is actually below sea level. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Dec 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 18:43
|
|
|
That's a real pickle for the Israeli forces, it sure is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 06:31
|
|
|
Wanna fly a P-61? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZxlIjQqiTk This channel is a rabbit hole.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 17:00
|
|
|
charliemonster42 posted:Too close for minimums, switching to secondary minimums. I need this to implemented with a switch under a safety flip cover so that you can be cool Maybe also a switch that says enable alternate mass balance or something (this one plays the aviation safety institute jingle)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 22:17
|
|
|
Video in the link of the recovery of a P-8A out of the bay after overrunning runway. https://www.dvidshub.net/video/907633/us-navy-p-8a-poseidon-extraction-kaneohe-bay
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2023 22:38
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Video in the link of the recovery of a P-8A out of the bay after overrunning runway. Interesting that they kept it on the inflateable rollers after they got it out of the water. I guess the gear didn't survive as intact as it looks from a distance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2023 22:51
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Video in the link of the recovery of a P-8A out of the bay after overrunning runway. That's gotta be a hull loss right? With where the waterline was at and how long it sat in the bay, I can't imagine that salt water hasn't infiltrated, like, everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2023 23:49
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:Interesting that they kept it on the inflateable rollers after they got it out of the water. I guess the gear didn't survive as intact as it looks from a distance. "How are we going to get it out of the water, Sir?" "What does it say on the left side of your shirt?" "US Navy?" "Exactly ...and what does the US Navy do?" "Boat stuff?" "You're catching on, Pyle! Now grab that boat stuff and get moving!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2023 00:16
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:That's gotta be a hull loss right? With where the waterline was at and how long it sat in the bay, I can't imagine that salt water hasn't infiltrated, like, everything. Economically repairable means something different to the DOD but for the sake of future aircrews hopefully the answer is yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2023 00:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:46 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Economically repairable means something different to the DOD but for the sake of future aircrews hopefully the answer is yes. Once, perhaps. Nowadays, if the folks at Boeing doing the Depot maintenance say "screw this: this thing is junk" the DoD will hold its hat and say "ok, sorry sir may I buy another?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2023 05:18
|
|