Calidus B-350

TomS said:
Interesting comment by Steve Trimble, here.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1461264050676023296
View: https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1461264050676023296?t=T_5bpgjbF83EexQimwPYjA&s=19


I'm doubtful. If the plan was to build a pure sensor platform, why a dozen hard points?
Click to expand...
The latest sensors give you a tactical advantage over Taliban, bad guys, drug smugglers, etc. It also carries a few weapons because your air force may only be able to afford one type of air frame, or an armed interceptor may be an hour or two away ... far enough away to allow bad guys to cross the border to safety.
Remember that these sorts of low-tech war planes are meant for poorer countries that can barely afford a handful of small, simple airplanes.
 
Last edited:
apparition13 said:
Archibald said:

Okaaaay... that explains a lot of things about this beast. Hey, they should scale it up again, using an A400M turboprop !

Turboprop Skyraider. Not as good looking as the Skyshark, but that's what I think of when I see it. Especially the image with man standing next to it. That really gives a sense of it's size.
Click to expand...
Hopefully with a more reliable turboprop... (not too difficult !) But you have a point, a modern day Skyshark for sure.
Click to expand...
Skyraider is a better analogy. Skyshark had twice the power, was as fast as an L-39, but had a better climb rate and higher ceiling than the L-39. It was on par with the first generation of straight wing jets. The jets might have had a bit higher top speed, but the Skyshark could beat them in a climb and had a higher ceiling. A modern Skyshark with the kinks worked out would be a hell of an aircraft.

Scale it up to fit an A400 engine and you'd have twice the power of a Skyshark. More than both engines on a C-27J in fact. Might be - overkill. :) C-27J engine on the other hand....
Click to expand...
Careful.
When the airplane grows too big, too heavy and too fast, it can no longer turn in tight mountain valleys.
For comparison, most RCAF Search and Rescue squadrons fly C-130 Hercules because they can carry plenty of fuel and equipment for long searches. OTOH the West Coast CSAR squadrons fly DHC-5 Buffalo twins because they can turn much tighter in steep mountain valleys. Worn out Buffalos are now being replaced by similar-sized CN 235 twins.
 
Well if I was the person in charge of a small(er) country with a limited budget, my new "C-12" better be able to drop bombs, since that is probably the pictures that my defense ministry showed me.
 
TomS said:
Interesting comment by Steve Trimble, here.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1461264050676023296
View: https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1461264050676023296?t=T_5bpgjbF83EexQimwPYjA&s=19


I'm doubtful. If the plan was to build a pure sensor platform, why a dozen hard points?
Click to expand...
If this massive platform is being designed simply for surveillance, then it will fail. A UAV can perform the same mission for a longer duration and for a cheaper price point. A few years ago, Qatar commissioned a German firm to develop a purpose built surveillance plane, the QO1. But it looks like they abandoned the project and moved on to something else.

German-Qatari Venture Creates Cost-Effective Surveillance Platform | Aviation Week Network

Motor-glider experience prompts new developments in optionally piloted surveillance aircraft.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com

Qatar backing new 'eye in the sky' | Times Aerospace

www.timesaerospace.aero www.timesaerospace.aero
 

Attachments

  • Katar-an-Wildauer-Flugzeug-interessiert_big_teaser_article.jpg
    Katar-an-Wildauer-Flugzeug-interessiert_big_teaser_article.jpg
    42.9 KB · Views: 88
  • Cj096-EUoAI0FVv.jpg
    Cj096-EUoAI0FVv.jpg
    91 KB · Views: 67
  • german-qatar-surveillance_67280.jpg
    german-qatar-surveillance_67280.jpg
    165.4 KB · Views: 98
What can this aircraft do that an AT-6 or Super Tucano can't? Those two are likely to be a lot cheaper in the long run and are known quantities. Two important things for the kind of countries that would be interested in this aircraft.
 
Desertfox said:
What can this aircraft do that an AT-6 or Super Tucano can't? Those two are likely to be a lot cheaper in the long run and are known quantities. Two important things for the kind of countries that would be interested in this aircraft.
Click to expand...
I would assume that the platform has some more endurance and it certainly has more stores stations to work with. Whether or not that is worth the expense is likely to be the debate on its viability. Ironically the Skyraider that this aircraft is compared to had sufficient space, if I recall correctly, to have an electronics suite and operator had they had such things in the 50-70's.
 
yasotay said:
I would assume that the platform has some more endurance and it certainly has more stores stations to work with. Whether or not that is worth the expense is likely to be the debate on its viability. Ironically the Skyraider that this aircraft is compared to had sufficient space, if I recall correctly, to have an electronics suite and operator had they had such things in the 50-70's.
Click to expand...

There were 2-, 3- and 4-seat versions of the Skyraider, with radars and several different electronic warfare systems.
 
We must be getting close to a solar powered UAV just carrying a EO turret? Even if it needs a catapult or a carrier aircraft to launch it?

So if I was running a cash strapped airforce somewhere, I'd buy some, and some way to airdrop weapons from the back of my old herc or whatever I'm using for my smuggling sideline. Job done.
 
alberchico said:
TomS said:
Interesting comment by Steve Trimble, here.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1461264050676023296
View: https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1461264050676023296?t=T_5bpgjbF83EexQimwPYjA&s=19


I'm doubtful. If the plan was to build a pure sensor platform, why a dozen hard points?
Click to expand...
If this massive platform is being designed simply for surveillance, then it will fail. A UAV can perform the same mission for a longer duration and for a cheaper price point. A few years ago, Qatar commissioned a German firm to develop a purpose built surveillance plane, the QO1. But it looks like they abandoned the project and moved on to something else.

German-Qatari Venture Creates Cost-Effective Surveillance Platform | Aviation Week Network

Motor-glider experience prompts new developments in optionally piloted surveillance aircraft.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com

Qatar backing new 'eye in the sky' | Times Aerospace

www.timesaerospace.aero www.timesaerospace.aero
Click to expand...
A UAV is cheaper "IF" First World gov'ts will sell you the software. The USAF only trusts a handful of Third-World countries enough to sell them the latest software.
Far more likely that they MIGHT be able to buy de-graded software. Furthermore, that de-graded software will mysteriously go silent if they point it towards the USAF.
Hah!
Hah!

Forward fuselage looks like it was designed by Extra, but the tail looks more like a Diamond light twin.
 
totallyaverage said:
It's a mockup. Making some pylons and fitting mock ordnance doesn't cost much, but may entice a customer to fund development towards weapons integration.
Click to expand...

But that suggests that the purpose of the plane is to carry weapons, if only they can find the money to develop it..

If your primary goal was to build a platform to carry an MX-25 EO ball (<300 lbs) and Osprey 30 radars (also <300 pounds with four antennas) , you would not design this behemoth. You'd want something much closer to the Grob 520 -- a plane that can loiter at altitude without a ton of excess horsepower sucking down fuel.
 
There are several cash strapped countries who have gone the "cheep and simple UAS" route. Ask Ethiopia how their Chinese UAS are working out. Electronic jamming equipment is even less expensive. Cyber mercenaries are abundant. UAS are a great tool, but not the panacea of warfare.
 
Last edited:
What would the Philippines want it for ? Smugglers, ship-pirates, fishing-pirates and Spratlys...
 
Nik said:
What would the Philippines want it for ? Smugglers, ship-pirates, fishing-pirates and Spratlys...
Click to expand...
I imagine that if a few of those hardpoints are capable of supporting tanks, that loiter time would be truly impressive on this.
 
LowObservable said:
TomS said:
Interesting comment by Steve Trimble, here.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1461264050676023296
View: https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1461264050676023296?t=T_5bpgjbF83EexQimwPYjA&s=19


I'm doubtful. If the plan was to build a pure sensor platform, why a dozen hard points?
Click to expand...
In that case, why not a PC-12, with a loo and a coffeepot?
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same, at least you can stretch your legs, and take a leak, in a PC12.

Also when not on border patrol, you can deliver medicine, bring pregnant women to the hospital etc etc.
 
Sundog said:
Turboprop Skyraider. Not as good looking as the Skyshark, but that's what I think of when I see it. Especially the image with man standing next to it. That really gives a sense of it's size.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the size didn't sink in until I saw the picture of the guy standing next to it. That is one BIG bird!



TomS said:
I'm doubtful. If the plan was to build a pure sensor platform, why a dozen hard points?
Click to expand...
Combined Response:
LowObservable said:
In that case, why not a PC-12, with a loo and a coffeepot?
Click to expand...
AFSOC went from a PC12 to that cropduster for the Armed Overwatch mission.

It's got 2000lbs of electronics in it, which leaves the crop duster with 6000lbs of external boom to play with. Plus it's dirt field capable.

Cropdusters, even a turboprop one, are a lot more common in the middle of nowhere that AFSOC ends up working than a PC12.
 
TomS said:
There were 2-, 3- and 4-seat versions of the Skyraider, with radars and several different electronic warfare systems.
Click to expand...

That brought to mind a "transport" config for the A-1. I found this text at airvectors.net:

"53 AD-5N machines were converted to "AD-5Q" ECM platforms; as with the AD-5W, the operators sat in the four-place canopy, with metal canopy coverings. In addition, the AD-5 series was designed from the outset as a multi-role machine, and could be adapted to different roles by the installation of mission kits:

  • Air ambulance with a capacity of four stretchers.
  • Personnel transport with eight passenger seats.
  • Target tug.
  • Photo-reconnaissance platform.
  • Freighter with a load capacity of 900 kilograms (1 ton)."
Source: https://www.airvectors.net/ava1spad.html
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yeah, the size didn't sink in until I saw the picture of the guy standing next to it. That is one BIG bird!




Combined Response:

AFSOC went from a PC12 to that cropduster for the Armed Overwatch mission.

It's got 2000lbs of electronics in it, which leaves the crop duster with 6000lbs of external boom to play with. Plus it's dirt field capable.

Cropdusters, even a turboprop one, are a lot more common in the middle of nowhere that AFSOC ends up working than a PC12.
Click to expand...
Always been a big fan of a rebuilt Bronco utilising the turret of the YOV-10D NOGS. It could do everything the Calidus does and more...with the advantage of STOL, twin engines, better visibility and even a modest cargo carrying capability...and could land on a carrier...

I'm genuinely struggling to see the point of the Calidus...do love them for trying though...
 
timmymagic said:
Always been a big fan of a rebuilt Bronco utilising the turret of the YOV-10D NOGS. It could do everything the Calidus does and more...with the advantage of STOL, twin engines, better visibility and even a modest cargo carrying capability...and could land on a carrier...

I'm genuinely struggling to see the point of the Calidus...do love them for trying though...
Click to expand...
Few cash-strapped, Third World nations can afford twin-engined airplanes and even fewer can afford aircraft carriers.
Folks, please try to remember that these large, single-turbine airplanes are aimed at poor countries that can barely afford any sort of coast guard. …. think Somalia.
 
Last edited:
riggerrob said:
Folks, please try to remember that these large, single-turbine airplanes are aimed at poor countries that can barely afford any sort of coast guard. …. A think Somalia.
Click to expand...

I suspect that the Calidus will not be cheap...if you're after cheap you're buying a Cessna Caravan...

riggerrob said:
Few cash-strapped, Third World nations can afford twin-engines airplanes and even fewer can afford aircraft carriers.
Click to expand...

Using it more as an example of its utility.
 
riggerrob said:
Folks, please try to remember that these large, single-turbine airplanes are aimed at poor countries that can barely afford any sort of coast guard. …. A think Somalia.
Click to expand...
Nothing like having a band of pirates flying around with this big thing. The good news is that it will be easy to shoot down:rolleyes:.
 
A second reason for equipping a Third-World coast guard with slow, single-turboprops ( e.g. Calidus, Cessna Caravan) is that they cannot out-gun the USAF when the USA decides to invade to oust a president who rules counter to US policy. See Afghanistan, Grenada, Iraq, etc.
 
C'mon, the Calidus has way more weapon capability. You would have to fly a flight of Cessna for a single Calidus.
Calidus seems also to have way more adapted sensors.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom