Northop Grumman pitches Global Hawk variant for Canada

Northop Grumman pitches Global Hawk variant for Canada

www.flightglobal.com

Northrop Grumman is pitching a variant of its Block 30 RQ-4B Global Hawk unmanned surveillance aircraft for a potential Canadian requirement to patrol that nation's far northern regions.

Dubbed the Polar Hawk, the aircraft is a modified version of the basic Block 30 airframe, says Northrop's Global Hawk international business development director Dane Marolt. The US defence giant is teaming up with L-3 MAS for its Canadian effort

www.flightglobal.com...

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
blogs.ottawacitizen.com[/u rl]
[url=http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/general/northrop-grumman-l-3-pitch-polar-hawk-uav-for-arctic-use-65313]www.canadianmanufacturing.com
www.greencarcongress.com[ /url]
[url=http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/983213/northrop-grumman-l-3-mas-to-join-forces-on-unmanned-system-for-canadian-security]www.newswire.ca

First the F-35 Now
Global Hawk
This would make more sence then the F-35 I think
but we still need a few F-35 for when we find something anyway. It's a very big area to cover properly just hope it not a excuss to do more spying on us.

My quess is we will see them more over big city then the north.

www.flightglobal.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Trillium


This use of Drones, I agree with. Its a big big area up there and its nearly impossible and dangerous for humans to fully patrol the whole north.I would obviously be concerned about their use anywhere else in Canada, but considering our budget, the f-35 fiasco and the fact thats its so barren up there, Drones may be a good choice

Originally posted by Nspekta
reply to post by Trillium

 

This use of Drones, I agree with. Its a big big area up there and its nearly impossible and dangerous for humans to fully patrol the whole north.I would obviously be concerned about their use anywhere else in Canada, but considering our budget, the f-35 fiasco and the fact thats its so barren up there, Drones may be a good choice

Ya but we both know that out of 10 maybe 2 will patroll the north the rest will be use over big city east amd west
Quess I will have to make my bunker deeper now

If the North is so baron and desolate why patrol it in the first place?? Oh, the big bad Terrorists will try and infiltrate Canada from the North....LOL. They could easily get a Student visa to some college in Detroit and walk across some bridge to Canada. Makes no sense.

Originally posted by hoochymama
If the North is so baron and desolate why patrol it in the first place?? Oh, the big bad Terrorists will try and infiltrate Canada from the North....LOL. They could easily get a Student visa to some college in Detroit and walk across some bridge to Canada. Makes no sense.

lol don't forget those sneaky Russians!

Originally posted by Nspekta

Originally posted by hoochymama
If the North is so baron and desolate why patrol it in the first place?? Oh, the big bad Terrorists will try and infiltrate Canada from the North....LOL. They could easily get a Student visa to some college in Detroit and walk across some bridge to Canada. Makes no sense.

lol don't forget those sneaky Russians!

Maybe we could accidently crash one into a Russian plane and see what happen.
Remember you have to hit one over the head to get the attention of the other.

Originally posted by Trillium


First the F-35 Now
Global Hawk
This would make more sence then the F-35 I think
but we still need a few F-35 for when we find something anyway. It's a very big area to cover properly just hope it not a excuss to do more spying on us.

My quess is we will see them more over big city then the north.

www.flightglobal.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Luckily the Canadian government is too cheap and doesn't take national defense seriously enough to fill our skies with enough drones to spy on the people. Besides, why bother when the RC's have choppers with technology that can look right through the walls of your house anyways?

Originally posted by hoochymama
If the North is so baron and desolate why patrol it in the first place?? Oh, the big bad Terrorists will try and infiltrate Canada from the North....LOL. They could easily get a Student visa to some college in Detroit and walk across some bridge to Canada. Makes no sense.

Search and rescue, maritime/fisheries patrol, with the melting ice cap keeping track of shipping, wildlife surveillance/poaching, maintaining a presence to reinforce territorial and economic zone claims over the Arctic seabed

there's a whole raft of reasons why any government wants to maintain a presence in its remote areas, and a couple of handfuls of drones is a pretty cheap and minimal way to achieve them.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by hoochymama
If the North is so baron and desolate why patrol it in the first place?? Oh, the big bad Terrorists will try and infiltrate Canada from the North....LOL. They could easily get a Student visa to some college in Detroit and walk across some bridge to Canada. Makes no sense.

Search and rescue, maritime/fisheries patrol, with the melting ice cap keeping track of shipping, wildlife surveillance/poaching, maintaining a presence to reinforce territorial and economic zone claims over the Arctic seabed

there's a whole raft of reasons why any government wants to maintain a presence in its remote areas, and a couple of handfuls of drones is a pretty cheap and minimal way to achieve them.

Yes those are all good reson
The problem is how long before they start to use it on us in bigger center

Those little planes cost almost as much as a 747 when the development costs are added. I can't figure who would authorize expenditures like that.

who would authorize that?
a globalist shill

Originally posted by Trillium

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by hoochymama
If the North is so baron and desolate why patrol it in the first place?? Oh, the big bad Terrorists will try and infiltrate Canada from the North....LOL. They could easily get a Student visa to some college in Detroit and walk across some bridge to Canada. Makes no sense.

Search and rescue, maritime/fisheries patrol, with the melting ice cap keeping track of shipping, wildlife surveillance/poaching, maintaining a presence to reinforce territorial and economic zone claims over the Arctic seabed

there's a whole raft of reasons why any government wants to maintain a presence in its remote areas, and a couple of handfuls of drones is a pretty cheap and minimal way to achieve them.

Yes those are all good reson

The problem is how long before they start to use it on us in bigger center

yeah all those things sound like great reasons to hang wedding disrupters and lifeboat missles on the damned things...not to mention cameras - eyes that look through walls

I like my walleyes to be pickeral

reply to post by Trillium


F-35 have only 1 engine, making them a very poor substitute for our already working great F-18 that already intercept russian aircrafts. Russia uses aircraft that are about 50 years old and it is the only remote threat to northern Canada and will remain in operation for the forseeable future. Those military expenditures are nothing but a very useless military budget pissing contest...

Drones I can see the advantages.

Originally posted by gagol
reply to post by Trillium

 

F-35 have only 1 engine, making them a very poor substitute for our already working great F-18 that already intercept russian aircrafts. Russia uses aircraft that are about 50 years old and it is the only remote threat to northern Canada and will remain in operation for the forseeable future. Those military expenditures are nothing but a very useless military budget pissing contest...

Drones I can see the advantages.

The fact the f-35 has only one engine has nothing to do with why it's a poor choice to replace the F-18. The Canadian government selected the F-35 because it's a multi-role fighter and is a band aid solution for the air force. Rather than having multiple aircraft perfectly suited for their roles (as the best air force in the world down south does), the Canadian government would rather save money by buying a handful of fighters capable of different roles (but excelling at none of them in particular).

This is fairly typical of Canadian defense choices. In the end we assume that our neighbor to the south will always take care of us if the crap hits the fan. A rather dangerous assumption, imo.

You know something funny about the F-35's?

COMPLETELY useless in the Artic.

PERFECT for Middle East Topography and weather.

Things that make you go.." HMMMM?"

I wonder where Harper's priorities are eh?

As for the Global Hawk. Well I'm against it.


~Tenth

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by hoochymama


Search and rescue, maritime/fisheries patrol, with the melting ice cap keeping track of shipping, wildlife surveillance/poaching, maintaining a presence to reinforce territorial and economic zone claims over the Arctic seabed

.

Yes those are all good reson

The problem is how long before they start to use it on us in bigger center

as soon as you all start complaining about the high cost of existing police and other "government" aviation activities using helicopters and fixed wing a/c. Eg performing some of those same functions in the "bigger centre", along with chasing crooks through back gardens & car chases along highways.

Edit: Aussie lifesavers to use drones to monitor beaches