# Global Express Rumours



## fireman1867 (25 Jun 2007)

Hello All,

In the past two weeks I have heard a number of rumours surrounding the purchase of Globals to replace the Aurora's. Has anyone heard anything?


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jun 2007)

fireman1867 said:
			
		

> ....rumours....




G2G


----------



## Spencer100 (25 Jun 2007)

Pure speculation....I guest the Global Express could be used in a ground surveillance role like the ASTOR or the failed US ACS  program.  The airplane has be "militarized" for the Brits but I think the important part would be senors and mission equipment.  I would hope they have a open bidding for a program like this.  Do we care if the aircraft is a Global Express or G5 so that Bombardier can a sell few airframes.   

How would the Global Express be used in anti-sub role?  No Bomb bay?  MAD? The cost to develop this platform would be huge and for a very small run of aircraft for Canada.   Would it not be better, cheaper to sign up for the P-8 program?


----------



## thunderchild (5 Oct 2008)

I read CASR proposal of a hypothetical RJ MPA but I dont thenk its real.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Oct 2008)

thunderchild said:
			
		

> I read CASR proposal of a hypothetical RJ MPA but I dont thenk its real.



STOP.............in the name of everything that is good and pure in this world.........STOP


----------



## aesop081 (5 Oct 2008)

thunderchild said:
			
		

> I read CASR proposal of a hypothetical RJ MPA but I dont thenk its real.



Just because i can.....

Pictures i took at the RNLAF open day in Leeuwarden last June. I'm going to let you determine what the aircraft is, what is pictured and what it does. Chew on that for a bit and then tell me if an MPA version of an RJ is a stretch.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Oct 2008)

Well, seeing as how nobody else has jumped on this - 

One of three Bombardier Challenger 604s sold to the Royal Danish Air Force as Multi-Mission Aircraft.  Quick Change Kits for VIP, Medevac and Maritime Patrol in support of Fisheries and Economic Exclusion Zones.  Apparently it uses the same radar being considered for the Aurora upgrade?   Is that correct Aviator?


----------



## George Wallace (5 Oct 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Well, seeing as how nobody else has jumped on this -
> 
> One of three Bombardier Challenger 604s sold to the Royal Danish Air Force as Multi-Mission Aircraft.  Quick Change Kits for VIP, Medevac and Maritime Patrol in support of Fisheries and Economic Exclusion Zones.  Apparently it uses the same radar being considered for the Aurora upgrade?   Is that correct Aviator?



OK.  Let's get realistic here.  How large a Patrol Area does the Danish Air Force have?  Is it realistic to even think that their requirements would match ours?  Would that also not include A/C types?


----------



## aesop081 (5 Oct 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Well, seeing as how nobody else has jumped on this -



I was really hoping that "thunderchild" would chime in.......but thanks though.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> How large a Patrol Area does the Danish Air Force have?



That is neither here nor there. I simply posted these because thunderchild brought up a maritime patrol version of the RJ with skepticism. If it can be done to a Challenger, it can be done to an RJ or Global Express.......It is just a matter of deciding what missions you want to do with it. The Danes have a huge area to cover as well since they not only patrol home waters but Greenland as well. It is important to note that the Danish AF also has P-3Cs.


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Oct 2008)

CDN Aviator, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Auroras missions are generally flown at low altitude right?


----------



## aesop081 (6 Oct 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> CDN Aviator, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Auroras missions are generally flown at low altitude right?



The CP-140 has many missions, with varying flight profiles.


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Oct 2008)

I know that, but a typical fishery patrol or ASW is conducted at low altitude?

If it's the case, I really can't see how could any jet be efficient in these conditions (low density altitude).  The lower you are, the more you burn, the slower you are, reducing your range and loiter time.  I personally think a turboprop is ideal for that kind of operations.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Oct 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I know that, but a typical fishery patrol or ASW is conducted at low altitude?



ASW is generaly conducted below 1000 feet after a medium or high altitude transit.........generaly speaking. Routine patrols of the AOR are handled differently.



> The lower you are, the more you burn, the slower you are, reducing your range and loiter time.



Quite right. 

That being said, you are assuming that a patrol mission is continuous, with one takeoff and one landing. The Danes do it differently. The aircraft takes off, covers and area, lands at a second location, refuels, takes off, covers another area........etc,etc,etc until the day's mission is completed.


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Oct 2008)

I see the different way of operating.  However, why not choose a more efficient airplane rather than something that burns more and costs more in fuel?


----------



## ringo_mountbatten (6 Oct 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It is important to note that the Danish AF also has P-3Cs.



Just for the record the Danes do not have any P-3s.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Oct 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> why not choose a more efficient airplane rather than something that burns more and costs more in fuel?



Well, in the Danish AF case, the aircraft has more than the MPA mission to carry out thus the compromise in aircraft type.



			
				ringo_mountbatten said:
			
		

> Just for the record the Danes do not have any P-3s.



Correct, i was thinking of Norway.


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Oct 2008)

Yes, I understand why the Danes may have choosen something like that, but do we have any ambition of doing the same (multi-role for the aircraft) or are we going to use them solely for MPA missions?  

Any aircraft could do MPA, provided we strap the right gear on!


----------



## aesop081 (6 Oct 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Any aircraft could do MPA, provided we strap the right gear on!



The problem is what do we want MPA to mean for the CF ?


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Oct 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The problem is what do we want MPA to mean for the CF ?



Doesn't that also apply to the Search and Rescue mission?  It seems that many platforms can supply "eyes on", ie conduct reconnaissance.  The question becomes what do you want to do once you have found a "target" and how quickly do you need to react?  And with what?

Do all of our patrol aircraft need to be helicopters so that they can all conduct extractions?  Do all of our patrol aircraft need to be armed so that they can all conduct interdictions?


----------



## thunderchild (6 Oct 2008)

I think that we can agree that any weapons would have to be carried on the wings as electronics and crew would fill the cabin.  Thoes wings would have to be either rebuilt or built new to carry weapons and sensors to support the extra weight  and stress of manouvering at all altitudes.  This would add weight to the airframe which means more powerful engines but it could be done.  It may restrict how many weapons you could use or limit the weight of sensors you could carry.  Lift, Weight, Thrust and Drag all need to be ballanced out for stability in all 3 axis, assuming you want a stable aircraft.  (I learned that in flight school over 26 years ago)


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Oct 2008)

> I think that we can agree that any weapons would have to be carried on the wings as electronics and crew would fill the cabin.  Thoes wings would have to be either rebuilt or built new to carry weapons and sensors to support the extra weight  and stress of manouvering at all altitudes.  This would add weight to the airframe which means more powerful engines but it could be done.  It may restrict how many weapons you could use or limit the weight of sensors you could carry.  Lift, Weight, Thrust and Drag all need to be ballanced out for stability in all 3 axis, assuming you want a stable aircraft.  (I learned that in flight school over 26 years ago)



You make it sound like a weekend job, souping up a 57 Chevy in your garage.

What you propose is not even close to as easy as you make it out to be...


----------



## thunderchild (6 Oct 2008)

I didn't mean to make it sound that easy because it wouldn't be ,  I discussed this with family that work a De Havilland..According to my 2 sources the wing could be strengthend as they did with the global express.  The wing root  and main spar would be much bigger as would be  the flight controls  to deal with the stresses required.  It would require redesigning the fuselage at that point  as well as the tail assembly because the weight and stress of more powerful engines.  I asked if they had been approached by the government about such a project but he didn't know or wouldn't tell me. What he did mention was that Brazil had a patrol version (P-99) and a AEW&C using a Swedish Erie eye radar set (R-99) on an aircraft of a similar class. I got a lot more details that I have mention her like changing the camber of the wing, stronger landing gear etc it was about a 2hr phone call but he seemed to think it was very possable with either the RJ or Q series aircraft.


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Oct 2008)

Here's an heretical proposal at a _Torch_ post:

A civilian maritime patrol aircraft fleet? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/11/civilian-maritime-patrol-aircraft-fleet.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Oct 2008)

And then you can do what the Danes and Norwegians do and put what are essentially civilian assets operated by the Coast Watch under the Department of National Defence.  In peace time they operate under Union Rules.  In war they operate under Navy Rules.


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Oct 2008)

thunderchild said:
			
		

> Lift, Weight, Thrust and Drag all need to be ballanced out for stability in all 3 axis, assuming you want a stable aircraft.  (I learned that in flight school over 26 years ago)



Actually, CoG and Centers of Lift are more important in the stability of an aircraft...  That's from my 12 years of flying and 4 years mechanical engineering degree.


----------



## thunderchild (20 Oct 2008)

Yes you are right the CofG is key and it is one of the things we discussed, a fuel management system could keep the CofG within limits by moving fuel automatically or manually between tanks in the fuselage.  We also discussed having to add a fuselage plug forward of the wing to compensate for the added weight aft.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Oct 2008)

thunderchild said:
			
		

> ...We also discussed having to add a fuselage plug forward of the wing to compensate for the added weight aft.



...or a fuselage plug aft of the wing to compensate for hungry pilots.  ;D


----------

