- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002170435_fastboat04m.html
Check it out
Check it out
SEA FIGHTER - get the NAVY in on this QUICK!
- Thread starter 54/102 CEF
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Good for them, but we already had something similar back in the 70...
I have to laugh at the US :
... the mentallity that: we have this never been done before technology... we are number one equipment that nobody can match...
If you look at our old projects, you would probably find that we already invented it. For example, there V-22 Osprey, we did it in the sixties, it was called the CL-84 Dynavert,
HMCS Bras D'Or
I have to laugh at the US :
... the mentallity that: we have this never been done before technology... we are number one equipment that nobody can match...If you look at our old projects, you would probably find that we already invented it. For example, there V-22 Osprey, we did it in the sixties, it was called the CL-84 Dynavert,
HMCS Bras D'Or
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
eacactly how do you think NASA got to the moon
ARROW power.
ARROW power.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Exactly... NASA.. and on the other side of the Atlantic: the Concorde. Boeing was working on a SST also. Except it could accommodate passengers or fuel, but not both. There was a few arrow engineers on that one too.
Speaking of the Arrow, the Brits, as the Arrow got cancelled, did there own arrow, called the TSR-2. I bet there was some old arrow engineer on that projet too. There was a lot of similarities between the two birds. The arrow was soooo advanced that some innovations were not duplicated until they made the B-2. My blood is boiling just talking about it. Diefenbaker was not the only one at fault, Crawford (head of AVRO industries) has his share of blame. There was no requirements to cancelled the Iroquois engine. They would have made millions. Todays jet engines still bares the Iroquois engineerings.
Anyway...
Speaking of the Arrow, the Brits, as the Arrow got cancelled, did there own arrow, called the TSR-2. I bet there was some old arrow engineer on that projet too. There was a lot of similarities between the two birds. The arrow was soooo advanced that some innovations were not duplicated until they made the B-2. My blood is boiling just talking about it. Diefenbaker was not the only one at fault, Crawford (head of AVRO industries) has his share of blame. There was no requirements to cancelled the Iroquois engine. They would have made millions. Todays jet engines still bares the Iroquois engineerings.
Anyway...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
404SqnAVSTeach said:
That`s a very good run down of where we have been -- but where are we going???
Nostalgia - doesn't win a knock down drag out fight
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
We have to look at our politicians and see what they will dictate us to do...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
This isn't new stuff, the U.S. is way behind with this technology.
The Norwegin and Danish Navies already have similar craft that are already operational.
Cheers
Paul
The Norwegin and Danish Navies already have similar craft that are already operational.
Cheers
Paul
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
While it is nice to bask in past glories, the reason advanced Canadian prototypes like the HMCS Bas d'Or, AVRO Arrow, Dynavert or Bobcat APC never went into production was the "market" (i.e. the Canadian Military) was far too small to support the R&D costs. The expected production runs for these systems was so small that the unit costs would be astronomical.
Time and technology has also passed by, where hydrofoils used to be considered "the" way ahead, naval designers can choose many different hull forms for many different missions. For small, high speed warships there are designs like "Sea Slice" (a form of SWATH), air tunnel hulls sized to small warship size, wave piercing catamarines pioneered by INCAT, trimarines, planing hulls and so called "Lifting Bodies" (sort of pumpd up hydrofoils which provide boyancy even when the ship is at rest).
Canada can get in on a program with the US Navy, accepting that their needs are not always our needs, or perhaps team up with interested allies (like Australia) with similar Navy requirments, remembering that multi national programs are also compromises, or eat the cost and make ships exactly to our specifications.
Time and technology has also passed by, where hydrofoils used to be considered "the" way ahead, naval designers can choose many different hull forms for many different missions. For small, high speed warships there are designs like "Sea Slice" (a form of SWATH), air tunnel hulls sized to small warship size, wave piercing catamarines pioneered by INCAT, trimarines, planing hulls and so called "Lifting Bodies" (sort of pumpd up hydrofoils which provide boyancy even when the ship is at rest).
Canada can get in on a program with the US Navy, accepting that their needs are not always our needs, or perhaps team up with interested allies (like Australia) with similar Navy requirments, remembering that multi national programs are also compromises, or eat the cost and make ships exactly to our specifications.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,218
- Points
- 1,160
It looks like a Hybrid SWATH vessel. We tried the boeing made Hydro-foils here in BC, but the large debris was very hard on the foils. You can pick up some small Russian made Hydro-foils that were for sale not so long ago.
Similar threads
