• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Airforce Spending Spree

A

aesop081

Guest
Cdn Blackshirt said:
Just as a side note, I believe the Japanese are reducing their P-3 fleet dramatically and we could pick up airframes there if there is a desire to do so....



Matthew.    :salute:

You might want to re-think that one for a second....

Their aircraft are of the P-3C incarnation.  The AIMP, however missguided, was planned around the CP-140....a completely different beast  !!  If we were to pick up used P-3Cs from the JMSDF we would have to undergo a different process to bring them into line with post-AIMP CP-140s.  This would be both complex and costly and, IMHO, prohibitive.  Even if you were to completely gut out the Jap P-3Cs, you have a serious nightmare on you hands.  Post-AIMP CP-140s will have a mix of old systems and new ones.  Like i said before, the underlying flaw in the CP-140 design is that it is unique. We cannot simply apply AIMP to any other aircraft but our own. We would end up with two very different variants, adding to our current maintenance issues and creating new training issues ( trust me i have enought stuff to know as it is without adding another fleet to my plate).

 

Gobsmacked

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Many thanx Aesop81,  i figured if i nudged hard enough I'd get a good response.  :cheers:

But, we both know that - barring a miracle or a Conservative Majority, with the Fiberals in power their constant promises have often come to naught - MMA is but a pipe dream in the CF's fiscally constrained environment.

BTW, you do remember that the NZ P-3K upgrade is resulting in a Surface Surveillance Only aircraft - ASW capabilities removed or non-functional due to ancient technology.
;)
 

beenthere

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Regarding the hooker that did a hard landing. Absolutely amazing that the drive system remained intact. Had it done otherwise the helicopter would have beaten itself to bits.
My opinion in regards to rebuilding is no.
As for the structural integrity of Chinooks: Unless there has been something changed from when we had them in the past they aren't so good but the overall helicopter is great. It is without a doubt the best choice for a transport and our only possible mistake would be to by too few of them. They do have a tendency to crash and the procurement numbers should reflect that issue. There's only one thing worse than not having any of them and that's the embarrassment of only having a few.
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,147
Points
1,160
Beenthere, quite right!  Amazing the rotor dynamics survived as they did!  Interestingly, things have changed since we operated our CH147s.  Fuselage formers on F and G models are now machined from monolithic pieces, not rivited together from several pieces into a single former.  The result is upward of 40% increase in stiffness and flexure modulus as well as increased load limit performance.

Cheers,
Duey
 

beenthere

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
That's good. When I flew on them I could watch the huck rivets at the fuselage splices spinning in their holes and the side windows on the port side blew out in flight.
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,147
Points
1,160
beenthere said:
That's good. When I flew on them I could watch the huck rivets at the fuselage splices spinning in their holes and the side windows on the port side blew out in flight.

Yup...24,000 lbs on the hook would make the lower skin look like a drum head and the upper fuselage look like Joan Rivers' a$$!  ;D

Cheers
Duey
 
Top