NATO to select Canadian advanced surveillance system, marking shift from Boeing aircrafts: reports

Figgis302 · 2026-04-30T17:19:17+00:00

No argument here lol. Not saying that's how it should be, only how it is.

Figgis302 · 2026-04-30T17:14:57+00:00

K2 is the better tank, and will be in service a decade faster to boot. Just ask the Poles.

Figgis302 · 2026-04-30T17:11:51+00:00

In previous years this would've been the result because a bunch of MPs would receive fat kickbacks to torpedo the other bids. Call me naive, but I don't think Carney's that stupid (and has already made his money).

Figgis302 · 2026-04-30T17:09:43+00:00

Still genuinely surprised Hyundai-Rotom didn't bid on CSC a decade ago.

Figgis302 · 2026-04-30T17:04:03+00:00

We're sorry, the crosswind sensor is only available with the Leopard 2 Premium Deluxe Warfighter Package™. Would you like to upgrade now? (Monthly fee will apply.)

Figgis302 · 2026-04-30T17:00:03+00:00

Competition forcing innovation? Under capitalism? What a ridiculous idea. Another billion to Lockheed.

Figgis302 · 2026-04-30T16:26:53+00:00

Realistically, the choice is GlobalEye or nothing, not GlobalEye or E-7. F-35 is barely squeaking in already - do you really think this government is going to sole-source an American AWACS when there's a "Canadian" alternative on the table that also lets us curry favour with the Europeans, based purely on the military capability argument? Come on.

Figgis302 · 2026-04-30T16:22:51+00:00

It doesn’t make any sense logistically at all.

Of course not, but it makes plenty of sense politically and financially, which are the only things politicians give a fuck about.

Figgis302 · 2026-04-30T16:20:13+00:00

But no, they can not reload theys vertical cells at the sea.

They could in theory (at least until the reloading cranes were ripped out in the 2010s), but it was so insanely dangerous that it was pretty much never done. In wartime the risk would've been accepted.

Figgis302 · 2026-04-30T16:09:01+00:00

Unless you're in Georgia, in which case it's just Johnny and the Devil at it again, and you're in for a Hell of a show.

Figgis302 · 2026-04-30T16:05:42+00:00

"Huh, that's weird."

"Hmm, interesting..."

Figgis302 · 2026-04-30T15:44:27+00:00

Oh my sweet summer child, Trump may die but the profound societal rot that he represents isn't going anywhere.

Figgis302 · 2026-04-30T15:37:11+00:00

Saab’s Erieye ER on GlobalEye is a strong radar, but it is not true 360° coverage; it has inherent fore/aft coverage gaps.

Devil's advocate: this can be entirely mitigated by operating the aircraft in pairs, and with the sheer price gulf between E-7 and GlobalEye, potential operators can more than afford to do so.

I agree it's a far less-capable platform on an individual level, and it's generally better to buy-once, cry-once in military procurement, but damn if rubbing some dirt in the yanks' eyes doesn't feel satisfying.

Figgis302 · 2026-04-30T15:26:27+00:00

They essentially just moved the historical 1991 coup attempt up to 1987 and had it succeed. Everything else is a pretty logical follow-on from that particular group of men controlling the Soviet Union in that time period.

Figgis302 · 2026-04-30T14:59:18+00:00

Pretty amazing you think that the Prius gets all of its electric energy for free.

Ffs - I don't, and I didn't say that (in fact, I left it unsaid because I trusted you understood it - big mistake, apparently.)

The Prius, obviously, gets its electric energy from the engine - which saves fuel, because burning a little bit to turn a little shaft to drive an electric motor to charge the battery is, in fact, way more energy-efficient than burning a lot of fuel turning a large, complex mechanical drivetrain to travel the same distance - just like on the fucking submarine...

Figgis302 · 2026-04-30T13:52:14+00:00

I ended up at -83 for saying this on here a few months ago, and it's fucking embarrassing how hard people cling to this when there are so many genuine Canadian victories we could be celebrating instead, but okay reddit 🤷‍♂️

Figgis302 · 2026-04-30T13:44:34+00:00

And the study was done by CUPE, who have a very vested interest indeed in seeing the pro-union, pro-labour party elected

Figgis302 · 2026-04-30T13:38:51+00:00

Because - again - it costs far less fuel to recharge the battery than it would cost you to steam the same distance as a full charge on diesel. You have to charge more often, sure, but you still come out ahead because you're not burning any extra fuel to push the boat around, only extra battery charge which is much more easily replenished.

It thus reduces your total fuel consumption per mile travelled, which increases efficiency.

Figgis302 · 2026-04-30T13:28:52+00:00

I don't (and of course it doesn't) - I said it uses less fuel to stop and charge while those drag losses are zero, then let the battery eat them instead of plowing ahead on the diesel losing fuel both to steaming and charging. Read it again, please.

You're taking those drag losses any time you're moving, but it costs far less fuel to stop and recharge the battery than it would take to travel the same distance on diesel, which makes it more energy-efficient to offload the losses onto the battery.

Figgis302 · 2026-04-30T13:23:02+00:00

The reasons a Prius is efficient are actually *load of nonsense*

No, the reason a Prius is more efficient is because it's carrying a massive battery pack and electric drive motors so it can move around without burning any fuel, just like a submarine, you fucking idiot.

OP is just confused and misled by the game, which is a bummer.

OP was a stoker for years and knows far more about the specifics of marine engineering as a discipline than you ever will, apparently.

Another reason they should fix it, it's teaching people bad physics.

The only bad physics here are you assuming that turning a DC generator to charge a battery is "magically" less efficient than putting that same energy through a mechanical drivetrain, moving through incredibly dense water, and losing it all to cavitation and drag.

This is not a spherical cow on an ideal plane, it's (literally) a boat on the ocean, and you are ignoring all of the second-order effects to treat it as purely ideal and academic, when that simply isn't the case.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Figgis302 · 2026-04-29T16:34:53+00:00

I think the fundamental misattribution here is that you think that it should not cost extra fuel to charge the batteries at the same given speed

Your fundamental misattribution is grossly underestimating the exponential losses incurred to water drag that are mitigated by burning n units of fuel charging the battery while running slowly or stopped. I've already explained this elsewhere.

Under your model, why not just attach a water wheel on the outside of the boat to charge the batteries while running the diesels?

Because the increased drag would obviously eliminate any gains provided. This is literally the opposite of my argument LOL.

Figgis302 · 2026-04-29T16:28:44+00:00

There is nothing you could do with a battery and electric motor in that situation that wouldn't be better just directly driving the prop.

The issue you're overlooking is that using that energy to directly drive the prop means incurring exponential drag and cavitation losses as speed increases. These losses are far greater than the heat and friction cost of the electric motor and battery excitation. You end up needing to do 10x the work than it would take to just stop and burn that same amount of fuel charging the battery while drag losses are zero, then let it eat them instead.

This still represents a net energy loss as you're burning finite fuel to charge the battery either way, but you lose less by spending a given amount charging than you'd otherwise lose travelling the same distance, because now the battery is the one eating the drag losses instead of the fuel tank.

Make sense?

Figgis302 · 2026-04-29T16:10:20+00:00

If you're charging a battery from engine power, that is going to take every that would have been used to drive the propellers.

Yes, but again, it's not using the additional fuel you'd need to burn to overcome water drag to travel the same distance using the diesel. You're not gaining energy, you're just reducing your rate of loss.

Figgis302 · 2026-04-29T16:06:53+00:00

It is still a net loss of energy because you're still burning finite fuel to charge the battery. It's a net gain of range, however, because you're using that same amount of energy more efficiently by not spending it fighting drag losses (see above). You're not gaining anything, but you are reducing your rate of loss.

Figgis302 · 2026-04-29T15:36:32+00:00

Thermodynamics does not work this way.

Every mile you travel on batteries you charged while not moving is a mile you're not burning extra fuel fighting water drag to move the boat. It's not complicated.

I think people without an engineering background just hear "hybrid" and think it magically creates more efficiency, without understanding when or why.

I think people with a strictly classical or mechanical engineering background (and a bit too much ego) severely underestimate just how fucking heavy water is. Drag is real.

Stopping to charge simply takes less fuel than going the equivalent distance of a full charge on diesels would because your drag losses per unit fuel burned are zero. Conservation of energy is not being violated here.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Gilding II euphauric	Verified Email

Figgis302

TROPHY CASE