# SEA FIGHTER - get the NAVY in on this QUICK!



## 54/102 CEF (4 Feb 2005)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002170435_fastboat04m.html

Check it out


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (4 Feb 2005)

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


----------



## Wizard of OZ (4 Feb 2005)

eacactly how do you think NASA got to the moon

ARROW power.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (4 Feb 2005)

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...


----------



## 54/102 CEF (4 Feb 2005)

404SqnAVSTeach said:
			
		

> Good for them, but we already had something similar back in the 70...
> ..............
> 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,



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


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (9 Feb 2005)

We have to look at our politicians and see what they will dictate us to do...


----------



## Dodger1967 (1 May 2007)

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


----------



## navymich (1 May 2007)

Dodger1967 said:
			
		

> This isn't new stuff, the U.S. is way behind with this technology.



No, it's not new at all, especially considering that the original post was from 2 years ago....


----------



## Stoker (8 May 2007)

I was aboard the FSF-1 a couple days ago in Panama City where she's stationed, a nice piece of kit to be sure.


----------



## a_majoor (9 May 2007)

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.


----------



## q_1966 (1 Jul 2007)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> eacactly how do you think NASA got to the moon
> 
> ARROW power.



+1  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Sep 2007)

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.


----------

