# CP-140 Aurora



## cplcaldwell

The following article was noted on yahoo.ca news 

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings Provisions of the Copyright Act.(RSC)





> *Ottawa halts $1.6B upgrade of patrol aircraft*
> 
> 
> Ottawa has halted a $1.6-billion upgrade that would extend the life of Canada's fleet of Aurora patrol aircraft, CBC News has learned.
> 
> The Department of National Defence has already spent more than half of the budget of the planned 10-year overhaul - adding $1 billion worth of new equipment, such as navigation systems and flight data recorders, to the 18 planes.
> 
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay on Thursday confirmed DND is considering winding down the 30-year-old fleet and replacing it with new planes.
> 
> 
> "We want to make sure we have planes that can fly safely, planes that can continue to play an important role in surveillance," said MacKay.
> 
> 
> The fleet monitors Canada's coasts, watching for illegal fishing, polluters, drug smugglers and foreign vessels challenging Canada's sovereignty.
> 
> 
> Critics say Ottawa shouldn't waste the many millions of dollars already spent on upgrades.
> 
> 
> "What kind of plane might replace the Aurora? Is it one that's going to be more costly or less costly? So at this point I think we have a lot of unanswered questions," said John Williamson, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
> 
> 
> NDP MP Joe Comartin said he thinks the federal auditor general should be involved in this kind of decision.
> 
> 
> "There has to be accountability found," he said.
> 
> 
> Retired air force pilot Terry Wiseman said replacing the fleet will take years. In the interim, the Auroras will continue to age without the upgrades necessary to continue patrolling as often as they should.
> 
> 
> "As the Aurora is allowed to atrophy, its capabilities are allowed to atrophy, we're concerned that we will be deaf, dumb and blind in our northern regions," said Chester.
> 
> 
> The Department of National Defence says it will make a decision by Nov. 20 on whether to replace the Auroras. Ottawa could face financial penalties if the hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts is cancelled.


----------



## prom

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings Provisions of the Copyright Act.(RSC)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/09/20/aurora-upgrade.html?ref=rss



> Ottawa halts $1.6B upgrade of patrol aircraft
> Last Updated: Thursday, September 20, 2007 | 11:11 PM ET
> CBC News
> Ottawa has halted a $1.6-billion upgrade that would extend the life of Canada's fleet of Aurora patrol aircraft, CBC News has learned.
> 
> 
> The 30-year-old Aurora fleet may be replaced with new planes.
> (CBC)
> The Department of National Defence has already spent more than half of the budget of the planned 10-year overhaul — adding $1 billion worth of new equipment, such as navigation systems and flight data recorders, to the 18 planes.
> 
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay on Thursday confirmed DND is considering winding down the 30-year-old fleet and replacing it with new planes.
> 
> "We want to make sure we have planes that can fly safely, planes that can continue to play an important role in surveillance," said MacKay.
> 
> Continue Article
> 
> The fleet monitors Canada's coasts, watching for illegal fishing, polluters, drug smugglers and foreign vessels challenging Canada's sovereignty.
> 
> Critics say Ottawa shouldn't waste the many millions of dollars already spent on upgrades.
> 
> "What kind of plane might replace the Aurora? Is it one that's going to be more costly or less costly? So at this point I think we have a lot of unanswered questions," said John Williamson, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
> 
> NDP MP Joe Comartin said he thinks the federal auditor general should be involved in this kind of decision.
> 
> "There has to be accountability found," he said.
> 
> Retired air force pilot Terry Wiseman said replacing the fleet will take years. In the interim, the Auroras will continue to age without the upgrades necessary to continue patrolling as often as they should.
> 
> "As the Aurora is allowed to atrophy, its capabilities are allowed to atrophy, we're concerned that we will be deaf, dumb and blind in our northern regions," said Chester.
> 
> The Department of National Defence says it will make a decision by Nov. 20 on whether to replace the Auroras. Ottawa could face financial penalties if the hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts is cancelled.





I guess the question of the day is now, what aircraft can be procured to replace them?

P-8?
some type of smaller aircraft?
UAV?
Some mixture of UAV and another platform?


----------



## observor 69

FYI:  P-8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-8_Poseidon


----------



## Globesmasher

Yes this is rather disturbing.
I saw this on The National last night.

It seems to be a Catch 22 situation.
Damned if you continue the upgrades and damned if you don't.

I think there will be some steep penalties to pay to cancel the remaining phases of the AIMP contract.

A scary time to be in the MP community right now ... or exciting, depends on how you look at it.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> Yes this is rather disturbing.
> I saw this on The National last night.
> 
> It seems to be a Catch 22 situation.
> Damned if you continue the upgrades and damned if you don't.
> 
> I think there will be some steep penalties to pay to cancel the remaining phases of the AIMP contract.
> 
> A scary time to be in the MP community right now ... or exciting, depends on how you look at it.



Does the P-8 have any additional capabilities (or perhaps range) that would make it superior in an arctic patrol role?


Matthew.


----------



## GAP

Was the upgrade cancelled because continuing them would have left you with an old tired air frame with new components? 

What does the US use now? What are other countries using that has a similar role?


----------



## Mortar guy

One thing that isn't clear in this story is how much of AIMP will be cancelled. Much of the work is already done and paid for and to cancel it would be a stunning display of Chretien-esque stupidity. If they are talking about the Aurora Life Extension project (new wings etc.) that would make more sense to me. 

I really can't see them cancelling most of AIMP as its already bought, paid for and even installed in some cases.

MG


----------



## Bandit1

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Does the P-8 have any additional capabilities (or perhaps range) that would make it superior in an arctic patrol role?
> 
> Matthew.



For a full rundown on the P-8, check here.  For a quick rundown on the Aurora, check here.

To get to the skinny of your question, the Aurora has 17 hours endurance and 9266 km range vs. the P-8, which has a range of 2222 km, with 4 hours on station.

Much hype has been made about the P-8.  It looks like it would be a decent air frame which could handle the hours it would be flying.  Personally, though, I love the Aurora and in my personal opinion we should, if possible, simply get new air frames for the fleet that we have now and keep going ahead with the AIMP upgrades that are already almost completed.  Other countries like the US, Australia, Germany, New Zealand, Greece, and Japan amongst other use the P-3 airframe as well.

I know it would be a pain in the butt to reconfigure new birds, but the Aurora has proven itself time and time again doing everything that we ever asked of it, and that includes patrols over the arctic, SAR, shipping and fishing investigations, and a whole whack of other things that are covered under OPSEC.  US stats are available, and state that in Desert Storm, P-3s logged more than 12,000 hours in 1,200 combat surveillance sorties. I love the fact that it has everything that 2 Vikings can carry thrown into 1 airframe...and those Alison turboprops sound cool!  

Thoughts...?


----------



## aesop081

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> One thing that isn't clear in this story is how much of AIMP will be cancelled. Much of the work is already done and paid for and to cancel it would be a stunning display of Chretien-esque stupidity. If they are talking about the Aurora Life Extension project (new wings etc.) that would make more sense to me.
> 
> I really can't see them cancelling most of AIMP as its already bought, paid for and even installed in some cases.
> 
> MG



AIMP Block 1 is done and installed on all aircraft ( removal of OMEGA and new HF comms)

AIMP Block 2 installation is done on one aircraft ( Glass cockpit and new navigation suite as well as the new comms management system. The matching flight deck sim is built and the avionics maintenance trainer is set-up)

The MX-20 EO/IR, originaly part of block 3 was installed

One aircraft is at L3 for Block 3 upgrades ( new radar, ESM, MAD, acoustic system and the data management system )

Thats where we stand on AIMP at this time. The government already dropped the ball on ASLEP ( Aurora Service Life Extension Project - new wings and tail ) so the demise of the fleet is inevitable. This is something that all P-3 users have to deal with.  The USN is retiring P-3s at such a rate that the P-8 might not even be ready when all P-3s are time-expired.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

How bad is the metal fatigue?


Matthew.   ???


----------



## prom

well a couple questions;

1) While searching around for more info on the P-8, I decided to refrence the 737-800ERX that it is based off of. I deiscovered some intresting data on its range under full load, 5445km. Now I do understand that the P-8 operating altitude would be far below the cruise alitudes of the civi version, thus causing more fuel burn and shorter rage and time on station. However, I also found refrence to additional in body fule tanks a total of 6, 3 fore and 3 aft, to gain addition range and time on station. This refrence is wiki so I do take it with a grain of salt as i can not seem to find refreneced anywhere else.

737-800ERX

2) Could this reduction in Patrol preformance, with the addition of a higher "dash" speed be a result of the overall US plan to have long duration UAVs providing contiinious coverage and patrol, and perhaps using the P-8 in a more selective manner leaving the more mundane tasks to the UAVs and their operators?

3) Is the P-8 a good fit for Canada, now or in the future? If the additional fule tanks refrenced in teh wiki article are not standard but are optional, would turning the P-8 into a flying gas can give it the needed range and duration to fit into our patrol style?

4)Should Canada be looking at the same type of Patrol PLan that the USN is and adopt a long duration UAV to augment its patrol aircraft?


----------



## aesop081

prom said:
			
		

> 3) Is the P-8 a good fit for Canada, now or in the future? If the additional fule tanks refrenced in teh wiki article are not standard but are optional, would turning the P-8 into a flying gas can give it the needed range and duration to fit into our patrol style?



I'm curious as to what you think is our "style' ?


----------



## prom

I was referring to us maintaining our current manned flight hours, for long duration missions, into the future and not adopting a hybrid UAV/human approach that i referenced with changes in the US for use of persistent coverage by long duration UAVs. Sorry that I did not clearly define what I meant by style, I assumed that it would not be necessary, and again it proved what happens when one makes assumptions.


----------



## geo

a$$ u me


----------



## aesop081

prom said:
			
		

> I was referring to us maintaining our current manned flight hours, for long duration missions, into the future and not adopting a hybrid UAV/human approach that i referenced with changes in the US for use of persistent coverage by long duration UAVs. Sorry that I did not clearly define what I meant by style, I assumed that it would not be necessary, and again it proved what happens when one makes assumptions.



I was just curious as to what you though maritime patrol does.  Our mission is probably one of the most marginalized in the AF so i dont expect many people to have the slightest clue what we do.


----------



## prom

fair enough.... and understood, I do realise that you do many operations hence my questioning and my amazemnet with the difference in ranges of the P3 to the P8 and my subsequent questions.

SO i guess to you would be a nice a simple question would the P8 be a good fit for Canada as a replacement to the P3?


----------



## aesop081

prom said:
			
		

> SO i guess to you would be a nice a simple question would the P8 be a good fit for Canada as a replacement to the P3?



Purely from a capabilities standpoint, absolutely. From a budget standpoint, i'm not sure we can afford it.

AIMP for the Aurora is pointless if not accompanied with ASLEP.  Even if both those programs go ahead, no matter what you do to a 27 year old airplane, it is still a 27 year old airplane.

my opinion only of course


----------



## Sub_Guy

I personally think the US made a big mistake going with the 737, and I think they should have stuck with the P3 airframe, I know Boeing was awarded the MMA contract so its too bad that we will never see the Orion 21.

You can't replace the CP-140 with UAV's,  but you could probably augment a MPA with UAV's......

I just hope they don't put a halt on MOAT courses......   It will be interesting to see what will come out of this, I heard a little thing about using Dash-8's as coastal patrol aircraft, but that could have been the punch line of some sick joke..... 

Anyway seeing as I my experience level is (ZERO) I will shut it.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Here are the users of the Dash-8 (Q whatever) for maritime patrol--I suspect our requirements are rather more demanding:
http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=3_0&lang=en&file=/en/3_0/pressrelease.jsp%3Fgroup%3D3_0%26lan%3Den%26action%3Dview%26mode%3Dlist%26year%3Dnull%26id%3D4724%26sCateg%3D3_0

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## prom

there are other options out there that have some merit, susch as the MRA4 Nimrod, the MPA320 (german and itlian joint project as a P-3 replacement based off an A320ER, I read somewhere about some smaller nations using small business jets and out fitting them with the proper equipment.

but hey way outta my lane too

and thanks for your opnion on the P8 CDN, it is very much appreciated.


edit: Most liekly it was information on the dash 8 that Im refering to with respect to teh smaller business jets


----------



## aesop081

Mark,

"coast guard" those are key words......

We are not looking at replacing a coast guard airplane but and air force warplane. Theres more to the CP-140s mission than looking at who is out there and looking for polluters.



			
				prom said:
			
		

> there are other options out there that have some merit, susch as the MRA4 Nimrod, the MPA320 (german and itlian joint project as a P-3 replacement based off an A320ER, I read somewhere about some smaller nations using small business jets and out fitting them with the proper equipment.



Smaller nations dont have the giant expanses of ocean and land to patrol that we do.  Some of those smaller nations dont have the need to support their navy in ASW and ASuW operations.  As for the Nimrod MRA 4, it isnt an option that has merrit.


----------



## observor 69

More FYI:

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/002310.html

Umm, according to this,

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2004/01/12/daily13.html

The 737 is Boeings best seller, and the Next-Gen 737 (on which the P8 is based) have been continuously updated. 

On using the 767, while there is some merit to having a longer-ranged aircraft for this role, the 767 is, on average, twice as expensive as a 737 to buy and operate. 

The USN seems to think that slow speed and low altitude operations aren't as important anymore, and would rather have an aircraft that can cruise higher (read larger sensor footprint), and faster (more area coverage). 

The speed advantage is negligible? 440kts vs 330kts is a third faster. I wouldn't call that negligible.

The old prop P3 is not as fuel efficient as a 737, not even close. Plus, four, old props require a lot more maintenance than two, new turbofans.

Posted by Smitty | September 12, 2005 7:20 PM


----------



## MarkOttawa

prom: As for business jets for maritime missions, Bombardier has a finger in that pie too (Challenger, Global)--but again the question is the mission:
http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=3_0&lang=en&file=/en/3_0/3_1/3_1_2.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Spencer100

Australia uses the Dash 8 (Q) for its coastwatch program.  Some other countries also use the Dash 8 for maritime watch too.  The coastwatch program is run by a private company.  I do not think it is in the same league as what we do with our Auroras

http://www.customs.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=4238


----------



## aesop081

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> I do not think it is in the same league as what we do with our Auroras



Indeed it is not.

its not even the same sport


----------



## observor 69

Lots of info here:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/p8-poseidon-mma-longrange-maritime-patrol-and-more-02980/

Many people would contend that the P-3 Orion is the greatest maritime patrol aircraft ever flown. These aircraft entered service in 1959 and will continue to serve past 2011, accepting modifications to their equipment that have sharpened their capabilities, and even given them a land-attack and surveillance role. In service with 15 countries, the Orion is a great success – but it's a very old success, and a replacement is needed. 

The P-8A has emerged from the P-7 LRAACA program that was begun in 1988. That program originally envisaged an improved P-3G design, but program cost overruns and interest in opening the competition to commercial designs led to cancellation of the P-7 program in 1990. The successor MMA program was begun in March 2000, and Boeing beat Lockheed's "Orion 21" for the contract with a design based on the ubiquitous 737 passenger jet.

Filling the P-3 Orion's shoes will be no easy task. What missions will the new P-8A Poseidon face? What do we know about the platform, the project team, and ongoing developments? And will the P-3's level of global customer coverage give its successor a comparable level of export opportunities? Or has the market shifted in the interim?

This is DID's FOCUS Article concerning the P-8A Poseidon Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft, and it will be updated as events and contracts are announced. In the latest news, Australia has made it official by announcing an A$ 4 billion program to buy the P-8A…

The Controversy: Turboprop, or Turbofan Jet? 
P-8A Poseidon: Platform & Capabilities 
The P-8's BAMS Companion: Kicking It Up a Notch 
P-8A Poseidon: Program & History 
P-8A Poseidon: Contracts & Events 
News & Analysis: India's Interest, and Broader Export Potential 
Additional Readings & Sources: Platforms & Program Background 
Additional Readings & Sources: News & Updates


----------



## MarkOttawa

An excellent post by Babbling Brooks on this and broader procurement issues:

A failure of planning and foresight: blame the politicians
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/09/failure-of-planning-and-foresight-blame.html

And, if the government could afford two types of planes (plus UAVs):

Marine pollution surveillance aircraft
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/12/marine-pollution-surveillance-aircraft.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## navig8ur

The Block 2 programme is further ahead than many think.  Three airframes, 105, 106, and 108 are completed with three in-plant for mods.  As well, the Integrated Avionics trainer is fully modified with Block 2.  As one might expect there are some structural issues with an aircraft introduced in the early 80's; however, it is not as bad as widely thought.  ASLEP is not the only option to extend the life of the aircraft and other partial options are available such as the SSI K process, which changes various structural components extending the life of the airframe.  ASLEP is undoubtedly the most cost effective option in the long run as it extends the life another 20 or so years; however, it is the most costly option to give the airframe more life/hours.  Without any major structural mods we can probably get the aircraft out to the middle of the next decade but it is not going to be easy.  

The Block 3 program will give the aircraft excellent sensor capabilities but one has to ask is it a worthwhile endeavour on an airframe that is going to be retired due to a lack of will/money to extend the structural life.  

It seems unlikely that any built in Canada replacement can be in place by the time our fleet TX's.  Modding a Global Express or other commercial variant is going to be problematic as one can see with the delays in the P-8 programme.  UAV's are an option but requirements such as redundant satellite/communication  access while operating in controlled airspace make this option quite costly as well.


----------



## observor 69

Valley Denizen said:
			
		

> It seems unlikely that any built in Canada replacement can be in place by the time our fleet TX's.  Modding a Global Express or other commercial variant is going to be problematic as one can see with the delays in the P-8 programme.  UAV's are an option but requirements such as redundant satellite/communication  access while operating in controlled airspace make this option quite costly as well.



Makes one wonder if it is time to follow the C-17 example and buy off the shelf MMA 737s.


----------



## Northernguardian

Very interesting times to be involved with the CP140 indeed. Valley Denizen is very well informed wrt tail numbers. 
I attended a stand up lunch with Gen. McCabe this month and the topic of CP140 replacement came up. He didn't come out and say that we are going to procure a replacement, but stated that a Canadian made aircraft would be selected if we did. He said the P8 was far to expensive. 

Bombardier doesn't make anything capable of replacing the CP140, or any LRP aircraft.  However if the Conservatives announce we are buying Bombardier, it would be a vote getter in Quebec and Ontario.  Buy some little commuter aircraft and get something half assed. Imagine LRP in the arctic with a Dash 8. What a joke.....

Of course, there is the CRJ. Quite a warplane there. They had to leave half the luggage behind when I flew on one last spring to Toronto. That aircraft cannot fly with full pax and luggage for more than a few hours. They had to take on extra fuel for an alternate (Montreal), so they bumped our luggage. I will never fly on one of them again.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just one thought:  If we went with shorter range aircraft, such as a tweaked version of ASTOR or perhaps something completely different, it would necessitate more bases in the North which in my humble opinion is inherently a good thing with the increasingly assertive stances of Russia and others.


Matthew.


----------



## aesop081

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Just one thought:  If we went with shorter range aircraft, such as a tweaked version of ASTOR or perhaps something completely different, it would necessitate more bases in the North which in my humble opinion is inherently a good thing with the increasingly assertive stances of Russia and others.
> 
> 
> Matthew.



A shorter range aicraft doesnt do us any good on the pacific and atlantic coasts where we use the Aurora's range to the maximum as it is.


----------



## NovaScotiaNewfie

Hi all. I remember some time ago on NTV or CBC news here in Newfoundland  that Provincial Airlines or other NL firms were either making planes or surveillance systems for a northern European nation, maybe Sweden, Finland or Denmark for martime concerns. Not sure if it was overfishing, pollution etc...I did a search on google and found this site :


http://www.provincialaerospace.com/AMSDHome.htm 

Not sure if this system could be an option or not.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> A shorter range aicraft doesnt do us any good on the pacific and atlantic coasts where we use the Aurora's range to the maximum as it is.



CDN Aviator, if you were in control of the budget, how would you proceed with procurement?


Many thanks, Matthew.


----------



## aesop081

NovaScotiaNewfie said:
			
		

> Hi all. I remember some time ago on NTV or CBC news here in Newfoundland  that Provincial Airlines or other NL firms were either making planes or surveillance systems for a northern European nation, maybe Sweden, Finland or Denmark for martime concerns. Not sure if it was overfishing, pollution etc...I did a search on google and found this site :
> 
> 
> http://www.provincialaerospace.com/AMSDHome.htm
> 
> Not sure if this system could be an option or not.



PAL already operates on both coasts as it is now. They do not fulfill a military role thus it does not suport the Navy opr the army and does not contribute to international operations. They support DFO and other domestic tasks and thats it.


----------



## aesop081

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> CDN Aviator, if you were in control of the budget, how would you proceed with procurement?
> 
> 
> Many thanks, Matthew.



If i was in control, i would have upgraded the Aurora 10 years ago and would have jumped on the P-8 program from day one, simple as that.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> More FYI:
> 
> http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/002310.html
> 
> Umm, according to this,
> 
> http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2004/01/12/daily13.html
> 
> The 737 is Boeings best seller, and the Next-Gen 737 (on which the P8 is based) have been continuously updated.
> 
> On using the 767, while there is some merit to having a longer-ranged aircraft for this role, the 767 is, on average, twice as expensive as a 737 to buy and operate.
> 
> The USN seems to think that slow speed and low altitude operations aren't as important anymore, and would rather have an aircraft that can cruise higher (read larger sensor footprint), and faster (more area coverage).
> 
> The speed advantage is negligible? 440kts vs 330kts is a third faster. I wouldn't call that negligible.
> 
> *The old prop P3 is not as fuel efficient as a 737, not even close. Plus, four, old props require a lot more maintenance than two, new turbofans.*
> Posted by Smitty | September 12, 2005 7:20 PM



If I'm not mistaken, the Aurora mission profiles are usually flown at low altitude.  A jet at low altitude is FAR less fuel efficient than a turbo-prop.

Max


----------



## prom

Apparently the idea is that the P-8 will be able to operate at a higher altitude covering a larger search foot print, thus covering more area in less time thanks in part to tech advances


----------



## aesop081

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> If I'm not mistaken, the Aurora mission profiles are usually flown at low altitude.



 actualy  it depends very much on the specific task at hand, we have many and the specific phase of that tasking. Thats as far as i will go on that.


----------



## aesop081

prom said:
			
		

> Apparently the idea is that the P-8 will be able to operate at a higher altitude covering a larger search foot print, thus covering more area in less time thanks in part to tech advances


Sensor footprint is not the only consideration when picking an operating altitude so dont get wraped up in that concept.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> If i was in control, i would have upgraded the Aurora 10 years ago and would have jumped on the P-8 program from day one, simple as that.


And given where we are now, what would you do?


Matthew.


----------



## aesop081

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> And given where we are now, what would you do?
> 
> 
> Matthew.



This is my opinion only....

There is no painless way ahead. The problem we face with the Aurora traces its roots to the day it was designed.  The CP-140 Aurora is unlike any other P-3 in the world, thus the 18 we have constituted an orphan fleet on delivery. The airframe itself is just another normal P-3C but most of its tactical system come from the S-3A Viking.  We receive the CP-140 in 1980 and it was outdated from day one. It should have been modernized in 1990 at the latest. Fiscal constraints created a monster called AIMP in order to rectify the situation.  The "incremental" part is the one that realy gets me.  I understand the arguments about taking aircraft off the line for extended periods of time and training issues.  I understand that it was made "incremental" because of lack of funds. If we had originaly purchassed the CP-140 in the same configuration as the P-3C we could have, through the years, benefted from already developed modernization packages that went into USN aircraft.

As i said there is no way to avoid pain.  Norway has signed its contract for new wings and tail from Lockheed ( same thing ASLEP would have done for us) and from what i have read, the USN is considering doing the same to allow the P-3C to live until the MMA arrives.  This means that even if we signed a contract for ASLEP now, we have lost our place in line ( Canada was to be the launch costumer) and the CP-140 will continue to age and have to be grounded. With the number of flying hours already on each CP-140, they will have to be grounded and sit & wait for new wings, however long that would take.

So,

Lets say we install Block 2 and Block 3 on our aircraft, how long will we be able to use them for ? 2015 isnt far away after all.  How long will it take to train everyone on those new systems ? Is it worth it without ASLEP ?

On the other hand, can we continue with the current systems ( speaking mostly about the tactical systems since block 2 is underway for the nav and comms stuff) until the MMA/Bombardier replacement comes along ? 

I'm not high enough in the food chain to have the answers to all that. Theres people higher, more experienced and alot smarter than me that i trust will make the right recomendations to the government.

On another note.....

For those who seek to oversimplify the maritime patrol Long Range patrol mission down to sensor footprint , area coverage and low altitude, let me say this : Those are only part of the equasion.  It is not  matter of gathering a collection of radar blips and calling it patroling. Long Range patrol happens High, happens medium and happens low.  ASW and ASuW happen at whatever altitude is required. Overland ISR happens at many altitudes depending on the task.  You can have all the sensor footprint you want but when the weather extends for 15 000 feet right down to 200, sensor footprint does nothing for you. i've said it before to a few people, what the LRP comunity does in this country rarely makes the news and is not widely understood outside the units themselves and the Navy. We carry out missions that directly impact Canadians such as pollution patrols, fisheries patrols and counter-drug operations in support of the RCMP but we also have demanding military missions that things like provincial aerospace and "watchkeeper" cannot handle.

With the large variety of missions we have and the huge expanses of oceans Canada has to monitor, nothing short of a long range, multi-mission *military* aircraft will serve Canadians right.

My 2 cents, based on what i know now, i welcome all contrary views, especialy from those with more experience/ flying hours than i


----------



## observor 69

CDN Aviator  "I'm not high enough in the food chain to have the answers to all that. Theres people higher, more experienced and alot smarter than me that i trust will make the right recomendations to the government."

Higher and more experienced maybe, smarter doubtful. 
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.


----------



## Babbling Brooks

_There is no painless way ahead._

That honesty alone tells me your opinion is worth noting.  

I'd echo your thoughts about some of the poor decisions made regarding this fleet over the years, and I too find myself wishing for a time machine to go back and undo some of them (not just regarding the Auroras, either...).

Speaking with people who have an interest in this file, it's my impression that DND is increasingly concerned with finding a stop-gap solution that bridges between the CP-140 and a reliable UAV to handle long-range patrols.  The question is whether the current life extension measures cost more than they're worth in the grand scheme of things.

I wonder if better satellite communications on the horizon for 2014 (if all goes according to plan) would help make the case for a quicker transition to UAVs?

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Front/874400.html


----------



## Sub_Guy

You can't replace the LRP with UAV's you could definitely augment the fleet of LRP aircraft with UAV's.  Thats just my opinion, but I think it would be a costly mistake to think that a UAV could do everything that a manned aircraft could do.  

Besides, I just want to fly, not sit in a atco trailer working a joystick!   >


----------



## Old Sweat

Dolphin Hunter

Does this mean that Dead Ant is going to disappear? (In the bad old days when Edward and I were junior captains in CFHQ, a lot of the ex-Argus aircrew used to come to the Army Mess for happy hour. 'nuff said.)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Japan is working on their own solution to their aging P3Cs:

http://www.khi.co.jp/ba/2007data/ba_c3070704-1.html


----------



## Sub_Guy

Doesn't look that bad, and much cheaper than the P8.  Too bad they aren't permitted to export military equipment.  Makes me wonder if anyone is looking at this aircraft, and perhaps those export rules can be lifted.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

First flight (of the P-X) ... 2pics+video.  Looks pretty good, but the P-8 is still probably a better choice for the CF:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/graham-warwick/2007/09/japans-kawaski-px-flies-1.html


----------



## Sub_Guy

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=4c86bcdb-a875-4a96-86e0-c144c7407050]Military wants to replace spy plane sooner, not later[url]http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=4c86bcdb-a875-4a96-86e0-c144c7407050

The Canadian military is laying the groundwork for a multi-billion-dollar purchase of a new surveillance plane to patrol the country's coastlines and replace the existing Aurora aircraft fleet, which is facing structural problems.

Among the options that could be considered is a U.S. military aircraft based on the Boeing 737 passenger jet, but outfitted with sensors, as well as a Bombardier Global Express jet equipped with surveillance gear.

The air force had intended to keep its CP-140 Auroras flying until 2025, but the service is now rethinking those plans and wants a new multi-mission aircraft ready in nine years when it retires its aging surveillance planes.

The Auroras were purchased in the early 1980s to conduct anti-submarine patrols and maritime surveillance. The 18 planes operate at bases on the East and West coasts and are considered vital for watching over the country's maritime approaches.

The air force's current strategy is to continue using the Aurora until a new aircraft is purchased. Military officials say the service is in the early stages of the process and needs to assemble a team to look at the basic requirements for a new plane.

"It's all very early in the conceptual stage right now," said air force spokesman Capt. Jim Hutcheson. "They haven't got to looking at options yet."

Military planners, however, have asked for information regarding the U.S. navy's Poseidon maritime aircraft. The plane, a 737 converted into a surveillance aircraft, is the U.S. navy's successor to its version of the Aurora.

Canadian officials have also asked for details on the ASTOR surveillance aircraft project under way for Britain's military. That aircraft uses the smaller Bombardier Global Express jet and is designed for providing surveillance of ground targets.

"We provided the information (to the Canadian Forces) that we were allowed to release," said Denny Roberts, vice-president of Raytheon Canada. Raytheon provides many of the sensors onboard the Poseidon and is developing the ASTOR project for the British.

"They appear to be serious about this," Mr. Roberts, a retired air force colonel, said of the Canadian plan to replace the Auroras.

The initial search for a replacement plane comes as the military is conducting inspections on the 26-year-old Auroras to detect and repair possible structural damage, particularly in the wing area. The inspections were started as a precautionary measure because of warnings from the U.S. navy, which operates a similar fleet.

The Canadian Forces has already spent $900 million in upgrading navigation and radio equipment for its Auroras, but is reconsidering whether it should spend any more money to install new sensors and computers. It will decide on or before Nov. 20 on how to proceed on the upgrade program.

An earlier plan to spend $500 million for new structural components for the Auroras is also in question. That project would have dealt with the aircraft's wings, which several studies show have been "accumulating fatigue damage" at a rate faster than anticipated.

"The current thinking is that it would make more sense to proceed with an Aurora replacement in the 2016 timeframe and that's why we are thinking about not proceeding with the full range of upgrades, both mechanical and avionics and equipment," Capt. Hutcheson said.

No price tag has been set for a new aircraft, but defence industry officials say such a program is expected to cost several billion dollars.


----------



## GAP

Aging Aircraft: BAE's Structural Inspection Kits for P-3s
P-3C Orion
11-Oct-2007 14:43 
Article Link

BAE Systems Technology Solutions and Services in Rockville, MD recveived a $10.6 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract (N00421-06-D-0038) for the manufacture of 13 P-3 Special Structural Inspection airframe kits. This effort entails production of Emergency Rate Initial Production quantities of end item component parts, including engineering, analytical and manufacturing efforts in support of the Aging Aircraft Program; the original $14 million contract was announced on Sept 26/06. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (56%); Rockville, MD (24%); and Brea, CA (20%) and is expected to be complete in September 2009. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division at Patuxent River, MD issued the contract.

The US military has a growing issue with aging aircraft, and its P-3 Orion maritime surveillance fleet is particularly hard hit because of the planes' demanding low-level maritime flight profile. Numbers continue to decline each year as aircraft are forced out of service, even though the US Navy is taking a wide range of measures to keep its planes flying until the hoped-for P-8A Poseidons arrive to replace them. Other Orion users like Australia, Canada, and Norway are also taking measures to keep their Orions flying, even re-winging the aircraft in some cases.
More on link


----------



## karl28

So do this mean that the Fed are planing at some point soon to purchase 13  new P-3  to replace our Auora ?  Interesting Article GAP thanks for the link .


----------



## GAP

No, I think if you look carefully at the article, you will find they are talking about US P-3's


----------



## aesop081

karl28 said:
			
		

> So do this mean that the Fed are planing at some point soon to purchase 13  *new P-3*  to replace our Auora ?  Interesting Article GAP thanks for the link .



P-3 airframes are no longer manufactured.....by anyone.


----------



## Jammer

I think that a consideration that may influence a decision on the type of airframe that might do as an Aurora replacement is the desire to have four engines vice two for northern patrols.
Does anyone think that the new A/C might have a role to play similar to ASTOR or JSTARS in the manner of battlespace control?


----------



## aesop081

Jammer said:
			
		

> I think that a consideration that may influence a decision on the type of airframe that might do as an Aurora replacement is the desire to have four engines vice two for northern patrols.



If 2 engines (i.e. P-8 ) is good enough to fly 1500 miles away from base, cover a few thousand squares miles of patrol area over the open ocean and come home, 2 engines is good enough for the North.



> Does anyone think that the new A/C might have a role to play similar to ASTOR or JSTARS in the manner of battlespace control?



I'm sure its being considered but it will certainly depend on how much money John-Q taxpayer is willling to spend.


----------



## Jammer

During ALIX the Predator-B was evaluated. Has there been any other discussion whether or not UAVs might have a role to play in littoral patrolling.
There are signifigant numbers of low hour P-3A/B airframes in storage. Would they not be the perfect alternative to the AIMP. Meaning they could be modified from the wheels up, gaining a good bit more of flight hours without the cost of modifying existing A/F and hedging bets on A/C that haven't even flown yet?


----------



## aesop081

Jammer said:
			
		

> During ALIX the Predator-B was evaluated. Has there been any other discussion whether or not UAVs might have a role to play in littoral patrolling.



UAVs are in fact being investigated to see if they can fill this role.  Not necessarily the Predator specificaly but as a general concept its being considered. IMHO however, UAVs cannot fill all missions in the LRP/MP environment thus we wont be able to get away from manned aircraft. And then theres the question of what capabilities we are going to allow ourselves to lose.....




> There are signifigant numbers of low hour P-3A/B airframes in storage. Would they not be the perfect *alternative to the AIMP*. Meaning they could be modified from the wheels up, gaining a good bit more of flight hours without the cost of modifying existing A/F and hedging bets on A/C that haven't even flown yet?



You are confusing 2 programs. *AIMP* exists to replace the avionics and tactical systems of the CP-140.  *ASLEP* (Aurora Structural Life Extension Project) was designed to replace structural components extending the life of the aircraft. Therefore using old P-3A/B would not be an alternative to AIMP.  At any rate, forget the P-3A/B..........It would cost us just as much to bring them back to life and put modern avaionics and tactical systems in them ( we would have to AIMP them too).


----------



## Jammer

P-8 it is then.


----------



## aesop081

Jammer said:
			
		

> P-8 it is then.



To be honest with you, i hope so. I like the P-8 concept and i like the fact that it would mean not giving up any of the capabilities we have now.


----------



## Jammer

...and possibly gaining a few capabilties as well. Now if we could only jump on to the Wedgetail programme................


----------



## aesop081

Jammer said:
			
		

> ...and possibly gaining a few capabilties as well. Now if we could only jump on to the Wedgetail programme................



Again, how many more multi-billion dollar programs is John Q taxpayer willing to put up with ? In a perfect world i would say "bring on wedgetail" but we have capabilities  vital capabilities disapearing.......so lets take things one step at a time.


----------



## Jammer

J.Q. Taxpayer didn't even bat an eye over a billion dollar gun control scam, or a billion dollar public works boondoggle.
I say lets exploit that high that the CF is on right now..............


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach

The CAS (General Watt) was in Greenwood yesterday and almost confirmed the above rumours.  He stated that the Minister of Defence has not officially canceled AIMP Block 3.  The minister had until September 20th.  He mentioned that Canada will remain with Manned Patrol Aircraft in a MMA platform with some ASW capability.  Gen. Watt stated that _if/when_ Block 3 will be canceled to save money and to be put toward the next Platform.  The new MMA would be in service in the next 10 to 12 years.  He also talk about the  SPERWER/Tactical UAV System.  He basically called it a very expensive lawn dart.  The are trying to buy a new UAV but are lacking a bit of political momentum and they are working at building that momentum to be able to _afford_ UAV and a Fixed Wing SAR.

My speculations are -> Canada will have to look at both Boeing and Airbus proposals.  I wish that Canada would invest in an CL-415 MP to bring back the Tracker's role.  The CL-415 MP has an EO/IR, Radar and it would be easy to install any other Avionics package by removing the water tanks.  IMO -> Canada will purchase the Predator or the Altair.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> I wish that Canada would invest in an CL-415 MP to bring back the Tracker's role.  The CL-415 MP has an EO/IR, Radar and it would be easy to install any other Avionics package by removing the water tanks.  IMO -> Canada will purchase the Predator or the Altair.



Please explain to me why you think an unpressurized Sea plane that can barely do 200 kts would make an acceptable MMA/ASW platform?


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Please explain to me why you think an unpressurized Sea plane that can barely do 200 kts would make an acceptable MMA/ASW platform?



I my opinion, it would make a great _coastal_ patrol aircraft.  I could assist in SAR missions and the performance are similar then our old CP-121 Trackers.  Canada has also mention that they want an Northern Airbase.  the CL-415 MP would be a good contender for that job.


----------



## observor 69

404SqnAVSTeach said:
			
		

> I my opinion, it would make a great _coastal_ patrol aircraft.  I could assist in SAR missions and the performance are similar then our old CP-121 Trackers.  Canada has also mention that they want an Northern Airbase.  the CL-415 MP would be a good contender for that job.



You referring to this one:  ;D

Ah yes the first aircraft I worked on as an new AVS tech,

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/equip/historical/albatrosslst_e.asp


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach

Nope.... this one 

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/equip/historical/trackerlst_e.asp


----------



## Spencer100

Looks like some of the mission will be preformed by UAV.  So we may not even replace the Aurora with a manned plane.



Remote-controlled aircraft will patrol Arctic: military
Last Updated: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 | 9:41 AM ET 
CBC News 
The Canadian military plans to buy a fleet of remote-controlled aircraft to patrol the Arctic, an official told CBC News.


The General Atomics Predator shown here is capable of both reconnaissance and armed attack. The Canadian Forces have not yet decided on the type of drone it will purchase for northern surveillance.
(Courtesy General Atomics) 
Lt.-Col. Wade Williams said the drones, known as unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, will be equipped with cameras, radar, radios, electronic sensors and possibly even weapons.

They will fly day-long surveillance flights over water, land and ice while being piloted by an air crew stationed on the ground at a control station that could be thousands of kilometres away.

"I think UAVs will go a long way to alleviating the requirement to have constant manned aircraft in the air," said Williams, who is with the military's UAV program


----------



## aesop081

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Looks like some of the mission will be preformed by UAV.



Key word being "SOME".........UAVs are not capable of doing all mission assigned to the LRP comunity




> So we may not even replace the Aurora with a manned plane.



Since a UAV cannot perform all missions that are currently assigned to the CP-140, it will be replaced by a manned aircraft.  We may not replace all 18 we currently have but there is a manned aircraft in the future.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Since a UAV cannot perform all missions that are currently assigned to the CP-140, it will be replaced by a manned aircraft.  We may not replace all 18 we currently have but there is a manned aircraft in the future.



Concur.


----------



## Bandit1

Found this little segment on Youtube that shows only some of what our amazing Aurora crews do.  Cheers to you all.   

Bandit

[flash=450,200]http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/qDHIQ0J6Vww[/flash]


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable

I read that there was supposed to an announcement today (Nov 20) on the future of the Aurora fleet. I've checked out the usual news outlets but nothing. Anyone hear anything?


----------



## crazyleggs

Nothing has been officially announced yet.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/politicalbytes/


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

crazyleggs said:
			
		

> Nothing has been officially announced yet.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/politicalbytes/



This might be a better site to keep an eye on ('though I'm not holding my breath on that one): http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/index_e.asp


----------



## Sub_Guy

Patrol plane decision delayed until after Parliament rises; opposition angry
By Murray Brewster, THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA - National Defence has postponed a decision on whether to continue with major upgrades to its fleet of Maritime patrol planes until after Parliament rises for the Christmas holidays.

Critics say the deferral is an unabashed attempt to bury what is expected to be a bad news announcement for Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

A substantial portion of the work has been carried out in his home province of Nova Scotia.

Defence sources say the long-anticipated announcement was put off earlier this week until Dec. 18, almost one month past the government's self-imposed deadline and at least four days past Parliament's scheduled Christmas break.

Despite several telephone calls over three days, the department's material branch did not answer requests for comment - or explain the rationale for the extension involving the CP-140s.

The air force had originally intended to keep its 18 CP-140 Auroras in the air until 2025, but a multi-year upgrade contract was put on hold in September and there have been suggestions the military has been shopping for a replacement aircraft.

The life extension has cost taxpayers $900 million thus far and is about to complete its second phase.

To date, the Auroras have received an upgraded navigation system, global positioning systems and better radar, among other things.

The next two phases, which are now on hold, would have given the aircraft better data management system, sensors - such as imaging radar - and finally protection against air-to-surface missiles.

Companies, including IMP Aerospace in Halifax, were preparing for the next round when the project was put in limbo.

Defence sources said officials from IMP met with MacKay earlier this month.

The minister offered no hint about what the final decision might be "other than to suggest they might not be happy with the result," said an official who asked not to be named.

A spokesman for the minister denied MacKay is leaning one way or another and that politics played any part in the decision to postpone.

"The minister has not made a decision on this file and is expected to within coming weeks," Dan Dugas said in an email note.

"The reason for the postponement is that the minister wants all the information possible on this important file before he does decide the way forward and he's waiting for more advice."

But Opposition members said they don't buy it and the stonewalling - particularly by department officials - can only mean the Conservatives want the issue dropped into the pre-Christmas news void to protect MacKay.

There has already been controversy surrounding defence contracts in Nova Scotia's business community. Irving-owned Halifax Shipyards is suing the federal government over the awarding of a long-term submarine maintenance contract.

"So, it means during Christmas, ho, ho, ho, and we pull-the-plug," said Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre.

"The only reason they would want to do this during the holidays is because they want to cover it up so nobody knows what happened."

NDP defence critic Dawn Black said she's troubled by the extension and that politics appear to be at play.

"This is important for surveillance and for the safety of Canadians on both coasts and we deserve to know what is going on."

The Auroras are used for submarine hunting and coastal surveillance.

In 2005, IMP and L-3 Electronic Systems were awarded two contracts totalling $961.1 million.

IMP, which has maintained the airframe of the Auroras since they were introduced in the 1980s, has been carrying out engineering and structural upgrades.

Industry officials told MacKay it would be cheaper to continue with the upgrade and keep the planes flying until 2025, rather than spend several billion dollars to purchase new ones.

But the air force has countered that the slow pace of the refurbishment means it could have new aircraft by the time the old ones are back in service, said a defence insider.

Bailing out on the rest of contract would result in a "managable" penalty, the source admitted.

The air force is said to be looking at two aircraft, the P-8 Poseidon and the ASTOR.

The U.S. Navy replaced its Auroas with Boeing manufactured P-8s, which are essentially 737s modified for survelliance. The ASTOR is a smaller version of Quebec-based Bombardier's Global Express jet.


----------



## aesop081

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> To date, the Auroras have received an(1) *upgraded navigation system*, global positioning systems and(2) *better radar*, among other things.



(1) No it has not. We are still using the original INS system. The block 2 navigation system is only installed in one aircraft and conversion is set to start next year.

(2) No it has not. We are still using the original APS-506 that the aircraft came with in 1980



			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Industry officials told MacKay it would be cheaper to continue with the upgrade and keep the planes flying until 2025, rather than spend several billion dollars to purchase new ones.



Industry officials dont fly the airplane and dont know what state its in.



> But the air force has countered that the slow pace of the refurbishment means it could have new aircraft by the time the old ones are back in service, said a defence insider.



Slow pace ? Thats putting it politely.  IMP should be fired on the spot for the job they have done so far.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Denis Coderre, scandal searcher and aircraft expert (usual copyright caveats):

Aurora flap wings MacKay
http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/995241.html



> The federal Liberals want the auditor general to look into the future of the air force’s Aurora maritime patrol planes, a move which puts a local political squeeze on Defence Minister Peter MacKay.
> 
> The Liberals have written to Auditor General Sheila Fraser calling for an investigation in to the suspension of a multi-year upgrade contract on the nearly 30-year-old surveillance aircraft.
> 
> At the same time, Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald expressed concern that the refit of the CP-140s won’t proceed and promised to lobby Ottawa "aggressively" to ensure the multimillion-dollar contract with Halifax-based IMP Aerospace continues.
> 
> MacKay, who represents Nova Scotia in the federal cabinet, testified before the House of Commons defence committee Wednesday that no decision had been made.
> 
> He *conceded publicly for the first time that the Defence Department is looking at the possibility of buying new patrol planes * [emphasis added] to monitor the East and West Coasts, as well as the Arctic.
> 
> "We’re looking at a number of options, which include looking at the purchase — eventually — of a replacement aircraft to provide that capability," he said.
> 
> The department has postponed a decision on whether to continue with the major improvements to its fleet of 18 CP-140s until after Parliament rises for the Christmas holidays.
> 
> Earlier this week, critics lambasted the deferral, calling it an attempt to bury what’s expected to be a bad news announcement for MacKay.
> 
> MacDonald says the upgrades are crucial to the province’s aerospace industry and has already met with MacKay to discuss the future of the Auroras.
> 
> "It’s very important to employment. We have good-paying, solid jobs," he said Wednesday in Halifax.
> 
> "The federal government has a good aircraft there and it’s my hope and we’ll be pushing forward aggressively to ensure that continues."
> 
> Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre said he believes the CP-140 still has a lot of life left in it and his party will oppose replacing the 1980s-vintage four-engine planes.
> 
> The refit, started under the Liberals, was supposed to keep the Auroras flying until 2025, but defence sources argue that by the time it’s done in the 2012-13 time frame, the air force could have brand new planes.
> 
> The air force has received new heavy-lift C-17s and will receive new medium-sized C-130J cargo planes, fixed-wing search and rescue planes, as well as navy and battlefield helicopters, said Coderre.
> 
> "I believe the time has come to think about taxpayers’ money," said Coderre about the nearly $20 billion in spending.
> 
> "I truly believe those planes (CP-140s) are working. They are working very, very well.
> 
> "Instead of flipping through the catalogue and saying what’s the best thing we can have, then I guess the time has come to proceed with the upgrade."
> 
> The Auroras have already received an improved navigation system, global positioning systems and better radar under the first two phases of the refurbishment.
> 
> The next two phases, which are now on hold, would have given the aircraft better data management system, sensors — such as imaging radar — and protection against surface-to-air missiles. Companies, including IMP Aerospace, were preparing for the next round when the project was put in limbo in September.



A thought: why not separate general maritime, and arctic, surveillance duties (including vessel identification, pollution detection, fishery enforcement)  *and part of marine search and rescue* from the Air Force and make them a civilian mission?  As Transport Canada is already doing for pollution detection with a modified Bombardier Q Series.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/12/marine-pollution-surveillance-aircraft.html

Fisheries and Oceans meanwhile contracts with Provincial Airlines for three Beach King Air 200s for maritime surveillance, two east, one west coast (Aurora work for DFO also noted at link).
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/backgrou/2004/hq-ac20a_e.htm

In fact Q Series, 
http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=3_0&lang=en&file=/en/3_0/3_1/3_1_2_2.html
modified by Field Aviation, are used in the general maritime role by Iceland (eight hour endurance), the US, Sweden, Japan and Australia.
http://www.fieldav.com/pdf/press_20070507.pdf

Transport Canada could well operate such a fleet (despite their effort to become mainly a non-operational agency) on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Coast Guard, Environment Canada, CBSA/RCMP, CF as required, and others.

The Air Force would then presumably need fewer maritime patrol planes (whether Auroras or replacement) that would concentrate on military missions such as ASW and armed interdiction (and terrestrial surveillance, e.g. Afstan?).

And, if the Field Aviation Bombardiers actually fit the bill for such a broad suite of missions as outlined above, acquiring them would be a political plus I would imagine.

Some UAVs would also come in handy for maritime missions (operated by the Air Force for both military and civilian missions).
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/10/uavs-for-maritime-surveillance.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## navig8ur

Not to nitpick but four Block 2 aircraft have been delivered and a fifth is due in early January.  The initial Cadre Training started two weeks ago in Greenwood.


----------



## aesop081

MP&EU trials in Nanoose are starting shortly on the block 2 aircraft




			
				Valley Denizen said:
			
		

> Not to nitpick but four Block 2 aircraft have been delivered and a fifth is due in early January.  The initial Cadre Training started two weeks ago in Greenwood.



And not to nitpick further but Block 2 does very little for the future of the aircraft. All the sensors ( minus the MX-20) are still obsolete, The airframe is still in sad shape.  The GPDC is still ancient technology.


----------



## Kirkhill

Morning CDN Aviator;

Just looking over this thread after seeing another screed from Coderre on CTV about the IMP jobs-for-life programme and got to wondering what your opinion is on the Bombardier Global Express - ASTOR system being fielded by the RAF.  It seems to be making an appearance in the discussions of late.  It seems to be something of a "high altitude long endurance" type more than a low level platform like the Aurora.  But perhaps the same could be said for the P-8.

Curiosity, as usual.


----------



## GAP

Liberals argue for upgrade of Aurora patrol planes
Updated Mon. Dec. 10 2007 1:11 PM ET The Canadian Press
Article Link

HALIFAX -- If upgrades to the air force's Aurora maritime patrol planes are stalled it could hurt the military's surveillance capabilities, the Liberal party's defence critic argued Monday.

In reaffirming the Liberals' position that there's plenty of life left in the nearly 30-year-old planes, Denis Coderre said surveillance on the East and West coasts, as well as in the Arctic, could be at risk.

"Those planes have a capacity to be perfect up to 2025,'' Coderre told a news conference, where he was joined by Nova Scotia MPs Geoff Regan, Scott Brison and Michael Savage.

"If we are replacing them ... and we're stalling those other (upgrades), you will have kind of a gap in some years when Canada won't be able to fulfil its own military duty. That's a problem in itself.''

The upgrades, started under the previous Liberal government, were put on hold in September on the Auroras, which are used also used to track submarines.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay was not available for comment, but defence sources have argued the air force could have new planes by the time the Aurora refit is completed in the 2012-13 time frame.

MacKay, who represents Nova Scotia in cabinet, said last month that the government is looking at the option of replacing the 18 Auroras, 14 of which are based in Greenwood, N.S.

An announcement on the aircraft's future is expected Dec. 18, almost one month after an earlier government deadline.

"We're asking the minister of defence to come clean to Nova Scotians and make sure that the future of the Auroras is sustained,'' said Coderre.

Coderre also argued that Ottawa has already spent more than $900 million to upgrade the planes and cancelling the project would cheat taxpayers. In 2005, the Liberals awarded two contracts totalling $961 million to Nova Scotia-based IMP Aerospace and L-3 Electronic Systems to upgrade the planes.

Some 2,000 jobs could be lost in Nova Scotia if the projects are called off, said Coderre.

Brison said the Liberals awarded the contracts because they provided the best value for taxpayers, security for the military and industrial benefits.

"Nothing has changed in terms of the benefits,'' said Brison, the party's industry critic. 

"If in fact this decision is good for the taxpayer, or good for the region, or good for the Canadian Armed Forces, why doesn't the minister make the announcement now?''

The first two phases of the refurbishment upgraded the navigation, global positioning and radar systems of the aircraft.

The next two stages would improve the planes' data management system, sensors such as imaging radar, and offer protection against surface-to-air missiles.
More on link


----------



## aesop081

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> IMP jobs-for-life programme



I couldnt have said it better myself.




> and got to wondering what your opinion is on the Bombardier Global Express - ASTOR system being fielded by the RAF. seems to be something of a "high altitude long endurance" type more than a low level platform like the Aurora.



Sentinel R1 / ASTOR is a battlefield surveillance aircraft like the E-8 JSTAR.  It is NOT an MPA.  The whole ASTOR system depends on tactical level and operational level ground stations for analysis of sensor data. It does not carry weapons usable in the maritime environment. To get its 9-hour endurance, the Sentinel R1 must operate at 40 000 feet and thus, cannot make visual identification of contacts.

It is NOT and SHOULD NOT be considered as a CP-140 replacement.


----------



## aesop081

GAP said:
			
		

> In reaffirming the Liberals' position that there's plenty of life left in the nearly 30-year-old planes,



I'm sure he's never been in one or has ever seen the issues we have to deal with when it comes to keeping them flying.




> "Those planes have a capacity to be perfect up to 2025,'' Coderre told a news conference, where he was joined by Nova Scotia MPs Geoff Regan, Scott Brison and Michael Savage.



That should have read " those planes have the capacity to keep IMP busy until 2025"




> The upgrades, started under the previous Liberal government, were put on hold in September on the Auroras, which are used also used to track submarines.



The CP-140 was *designed for * ASW.



> MacKay, who represents Nova Scotia in cabinet, said last month that the government is looking at the option of replacing the 18 Auroras, 14 of which are based in Greenwood, N.S.



Nice to see that the MSM finaly got the numbers right



> "We're asking the minister of defence to come clean to Nova Scotians and make sure that the future of the Auroras is sustained,'' said Coderre.



Its the future of the capability we should be worried about, not the future of the Aurora itself.  The CP-140 is near the end of its life.  Lets figure out how what comes next now.



> Coderre also argued that Ottawa has already spent more than $900 million to upgrade the planes and cancelling the project would cheat taxpayers.



The Liberals should STFU there.  It cost the taxpayers $500 million to cancel the EH-101 deal and we still had to pay for the CH-148 and 149 after that......Pot, kettle, black.




> Some 2,000 jobs could be lost in Nova Scotia if the projects are called off, said Coderre.



Make no mistake, this is all that its about.  The oposition couldnt give two shakes about anything else.






> The first two phases of the refurbishment upgraded ................... radar systems of the aircraft.



What radar ? Have i been asleep the day they installed something to replace my APS-506 radar ?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

GAP said:
			
		

> "*If in fact this decision is* good for the taxpayer, or *good for the region, or good for the Canadian Armed Forces*, why doesn't the minister make the announcement now?''



In order, in case there is any confusion about where Coderre's, Brison's, et.al. priorities lie ...


----------



## Haletown

so it's IMP jobs for life vs getting proper, safe equipment that will allow the CF to perform their Operational missions ??

Good move Coderre, good move.  Maybe it could be arranged for him to spend a month with a Maintenance team trying to keep the current fleet airborne.


----------



## Northernguardian

Excellent comments by all.

As usual, Coderre has no idea what he is talking about. If he took his job seriously he would educate himself by reading the numerous reports detailing the serious support issues involving the CP140. The cost of ASLEP and the bulkhead repair (which should be done) along with the rest of AIMP would likely add up to 2+ billion and *probably take until 2020 to complete as IMP is one of the most inept aerospace companies on the planet.* They've NEVER completed any project on time. If they had performed AIMP according to the original schedule, it would be done by now. Instead, we began true Block II production this year. The four prototypes done so far are incomplete, in fact 105 is back at IMP for "retrofits." 

There are so many issues with the CP140...a big one seldom discussed is sparing. When the USN ceases flying them industrial support will dwindle away. Few companies will keep production lines open to support less than 100 aircraft worldwide. Getting parts for these old planes is a nightmare already, just imagine what it would be like in 2024 if we kept them. Such logistical considerations are impossible for the likes of  Coderre to fathom. He is not interested in the LRP fleet or the CF. He is only interested in taking cheap political shots. Lets not forget that IMP and the Liberals have crawled into bed before and done very nasty things (cormorant maint contract) to the air force. 

A dozen P-8s is my preferred option. Yeah, I know P-8s are big $$$, but we need a viable ASW replacement, and the P-8 would also be an outstanding ISR (esp. overland) asset. My fear is that we will buy these Bombardier "business jets" (votes in Quebec?). Cdn Aviator was right on the mark with his comments about ASTOR. ASW must continue be preserved as a core capability.

I've read that by 2010 China will have more subs in the water than the US.


----------



## aesop081

Northernguardian said:
			
		

> and the bulkhead repair (which should be done)



That one truely worries me. I was shocked at the "just keep inspecting it" solution. Its the second time something cracks ( rememeber the stiffener cracks on the main wing spar). When i go flying i always,always check the AMRS for the last time the bulkhead was inspected. Combine that with the fleet-wide grounding we had a week or so ago ......

Good times.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Northernguardian: Another approach:

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

More:

Really hot aircraft news
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/10/really-hot-aircraft-news.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## aesop081

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

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



Mark,

I dont know how many more times i am going to have to say this to you.  We are already using a Civilian system for maritime patrolling. Its called Provincial Aerospace.  The patrol on behalf of several clients withing the GoC ( DFO, RCMP, etc......) and their information gets fed into the system to develop the RMP.

What the Aurora does cannot be done by Civilians and THAT needs to be replaced by a MILITARY aircraft operated by MILITARY crews.


----------



## observor 69

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Mark,
> 
> I dont know how many more times i am going to have to say this to you.  We are already using a Civilian system for maritime patrolling. Its called Provincial Aerospace.  The patrol on behalf of several clients withing the GoC ( DFO, RCMP, etc......) and their information gets fed into the system to develop the RMP.
> 
> What the Aurora does cannot be done by Civilians and THAT needs to be replaced by a MILITARY aircraft operated by MILITARY crews.



Hey betcha aren't a  " ISO9000:2000 registered surveillance operator."  Provincial Aerospace is.  ;D


----------



## aesop081

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Hey betcha aren't a  " ISO9000:2000 registered surveillance operator."  Provincial Aerospace is.  ;D



And i have no desire to be as the pay is much lower than what i make now.


----------



## HDE

There's irony in Liberals and NDP trying to redo themselves as the people fighting to get good equipment for the troops.  It appears Coderre and Black are trying to rewrite history. :


----------



## geo

It's the opposition's job to hammer the government in power over what it is they aren't doing.... Same aas the conservatives did before.... That's their job... no matter how self serving it might appear to be.  When you're in the opposition's seat, money is no object.


----------



## MarkOttawa

CDN Aviator: If you read my posts you might see that I make your points in many respects.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## aesop081

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> CDN Aviator: If you read my posts you might see that I make your points in many respects.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I'm sorry but your "posts" are simply links to a blog that may or may not be yours.  How about you make your position here by posting it yourself like we all do.


----------



## MarkOttawa

CDN Aviator: I am a contributor to the blog.  Since you insist here are the full, lengthy, texts without the internal links:

1)  A civilian maritime patrol aircraft fleet? (Nov. 30)



> But first Denis Coderre, scandal seeker, aircraft expert, and guardian of the public purse:
> 
> 'The federal Liberals want the auditor general to look into the future of the air force’s Aurora maritime patrol planes, a move which puts a local political squeeze on Defence Minister Peter MacKay.
> 
> The Liberals have written to Auditor General Sheila Fraser calling for an investigation in to the suspension of a multi-year upgrade contract on the nearly 30-year-old surveillance aircraft.
> 
> At the same time, Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald expressed concern that the refit of the CP-140s won’t proceed and promised to lobby Ottawa "aggressively" to ensure the multimillion-dollar contract with Halifax-based IMP Aerospace continues.
> 
> MacKay, who represents Nova Scotia in the federal cabinet, testified before the House of Commons defence committee Wednesday that no decision had been made.
> 
> He conceded publicly for the first time that the Defence Department is looking at the possibility of buying new patrol planes [emphasis added] to monitor the East and West Coasts, as well as the Arctic.
> 
> "We’re looking at a number of options, which include looking at the purchase — eventually — of a replacement aircraft to provide that capability," he said.
> 
> The department has postponed a decision on whether to continue with the major improvements to its fleet of 18 CP-140s until after Parliament rises for the Christmas holidays.
> 
> Earlier this week, critics lambasted the deferral, calling it an attempt to bury what’s expected to be a bad news announcement for MacKay.
> 
> MacDonald says the upgrades are crucial to the province’s aerospace industry and has already met with MacKay to discuss the future of the Auroras.
> 
> "It’s very important to employment. We have good-paying, solid jobs," he said Wednesday in Halifax.
> 
> "The federal government has a good aircraft there and it’s my hope and we’ll be pushing forward aggressively to ensure that continues."
> 
> Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre said he believes the CP-140 still has a lot of life left in it and his party will oppose replacing the 1980s-vintage four-engine planes.
> 
> The refit, started under the Liberals, was supposed to keep the Auroras flying until 2025, but defence sources argue that by the time it’s done in the 2012-13 time frame, the air force could have brand new planes.
> 
> The air force has received new heavy-lift C-17s and will receive new medium-sized C-130J cargo planes, fixed-wing search and rescue planes, as well as navy and battlefield helicopters, said Coderre.
> 
> "I believe the time has come to think about taxpayers’ money," said Coderre about the nearly $20 billion in spending.
> 
> "I truly believe those planes (CP-140s) are working. They are working very, very well.
> 
> "Instead of flipping through the catalogue and saying what’s the best thing we can have, then I guess the time has come to proceed with the upgrade."
> 
> The Auroras have already received an improved navigation system, global positioning systems and better radar under the first two phases of the refurbishment.
> 
> The next two phases, which are now on hold, would have given the aircraft better data management system, sensors — such as imaging radar — and protection against surface-to-air missiles. Companies, including IMP Aerospace, were preparing for the next round when the project was put in limbo in September.'
> 
> A thought: why not separate general maritime, and arctic, surveillance duties (including vessel identification, pollution detection, fishery enforcement) and part of marine search and rescue from the Air Force and make them a civilian mission? As Transport Canada is already doing for pollution detection with a modified Bombardier Q Series.
> 
> Fisheries and Oceans meanwhile contracts with Provincial Airlines for three Beach King Air 200s for maritime surveillance, two east, one west coast (Aurora work for DFO also noted at link).
> 
> In fact Q Series, modified by Field Aviation, are used in the general maritime role by Iceland (eight hour endurance), the US, Sweden, Japan and Australia.
> 
> Transport Canada could well operate such a fleet (despite their effort to become mainly a non-operational agency) on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Coast Guard, Environment Canada, CBSA/RCMP, CF as required, and others.
> 
> The Air Force would then presumably need fewer maritime patrol planes (whether Auroras or replacement) that would concentrate on military missions such as ASW and armed interdiction (and terrestrial surveillance, e.g. Afstan?).
> 
> And, if the Field Aviation Bombardiers actually fit the bill for such a broad suite of missions as outlined above, acquiring them would be a political plus I would imagine.
> 
> Some UAVs would also come in handy for maritime/arctic missions (operated by the Air Force for both military and civilian missions).



2)  Really hot aircraft news (Oct. 31)



> The Air Force is beginning to plan for a replacement for the Auroras circa 2016. Thank goodness (though I think most people would be shocked to hear it described as a "spy plane"--maybe that's the headline writer's intent):
> 
> 'The Canadian military is laying the groundwork for a multi-billion-dollar purchase of a new surveillance plane to patrol the country's coastlines and replace the existing Aurora aircraft fleet, which is facing structural problems.
> 
> Among the options that could be considered is a U.S. military aircraft based on the Boeing 737 passenger jet, but outfitted with sensors, as well as a Bombardier Global Express jet equipped with surveillance gear.
> 
> The air force had intended to keep its CP-140 Auroras flying until 2025, but the service is now rethinking those plans and wants a new multi-mission aircraft ready in nine years when it retires its aging surveillance planes.
> 
> The Auroras were purchased in the early 1980s to conduct anti-submarine patrols and maritime surveillance. The 18 planes operate at bases on the East and West coasts and are considered vital for watching over the country's maritime approaches.
> 
> The air force's current strategy is to continue using the Aurora until a new aircraft is purchased. Military officials say the service is in the early stages of the process and needs to assemble a team to look at the basic requirements for a new plane.
> 
> "It's all very early in the conceptual stage right now," said air force spokesman Capt. Jim Hutcheson. "They haven't got to looking at options yet."
> 
> Military planners, however, have asked for information regarding the U.S. navy's Poseidon maritime aircraft. The plane, a 737 converted into a surveillance aircraft, is the U.S. navy's successor to its version of the Aurora.
> 
> Canadian officials have also asked for details on the ASTOR surveillance aircraft project under way for Britain's military. That aircraft uses the smaller Bombardier Global Express jet and is designed for providing surveillance of ground targets...
> 
> The initial search for a replacement plane comes as the military is conducting inspections on the 26-year-old Auroras to detect and repair possible structural damage, particularly in the wing area. The inspections were started as a precautionary measure because of warnings from the U.S. navy, which operates a similar fleet.
> 
> The Canadian Forces has already spent $900 million in upgrading navigation and radio equipment for its Auroras, but is reconsidering whether it should spend any more money to install new sensors and computers. It will decide on or before Nov. 20 on how to proceed on the upgrade program.
> 
> An earlier plan to spend $500 million for new structural components for the Auroras is also in question. That project would have dealt with the aircraft's wings, which several studies show have been "accumulating fatigue damage" at a rate faster than anticipated.
> 
> "The current thinking is that it would make more sense to proceed with an Aurora replacement in the 2016 timeframe and that's why we are thinking about not proceeding with the full range of upgrades, both mechanical and avionics and equipment," Capt. Hutcheson said.
> 
> No price tag has been set for a new aircraft, but defence industry officials say such a program is expected to cost several billion dollars.'
> 
> More at Milnet.ca.
> 
> Of course the Bombardier would have to be massively and expensively reconfigured for the maritime patrol role [along with other problems, Dec. 10 update]. And I suppose the existing maritime patrol version of Bombardier's Q series turboprops doesn't have the range for the Air Force's needs . But it might be fine for the civilian missions the Auroras fly, mainly in support of the Canadian Coast Guard, such as fisheries patrol. In fact I would argue that there should be a fleet of such aircraft dedicated to civilian missions (e.g. also ship pollution inspection, vessel identification) with the Air Force doing only what is truly military--UAVs could also do much of the civilian work. But no service wants to give up missions and the equipment and personnel slots that go with them (e.g. the Air Force doing the air role for search and rescue).
> 
> Update: More on the Bombardier Global Express airframe as a possible Aurora replacement (h/t to Jack MacLeod). And more on the fixed-wing SAR replacement.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Loachman

One of the problems with these mixed-fleet proposals is that we need a certain minimum number of aircraft in order to do the full-blown military mission in times of conflict. For the Aurora, this was detecting, tracking, and potentially attacking Godless Communist Horde submarines during the Cold War and possible warmer follow-on.

When not engaged in their primary role, such aircraft can conduct lesser missions, such as fishery patrols and pollution violations.

Aircraft designed purely for those lesser missions cannot, however, detect, track, and kill GCH submarines when the need arises - and should conflict flare up, nobody cares about fish and pollution anymore.

One therefore ends up with two fleets and a higher overall cost, as one still needs that certain minimum number of fully-capable aircraft, now under-employed in peacetime, and has a bunch of unnecessary lesser aircraft buzzing around, too.

There is a big difference between cost-effectiveness and operational effectiveness and, in any military organization, the latter is, and has to be, trump.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Finally, someone gets it.

Loachman, take a bow.


----------



## Loachman

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It cost the taxpayers $500 million to cancel the EH-101 deal and we still had to pay for the CH-148 and 149 after that......Pot, kettle, black.



That was just the contract cancellation penalty. Everybody forgets about the $800,000,000 spent on the programme up to the point of cancellation, for a total of $1.3 billion to buy no helicopters.


----------



## Loachman

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Finally, someone gets it.
> 
> Loachman, take a bow.



I've had it for decades, but thanks.


----------



## aesop081

Loachman said:
			
		

> One of the problems with these mixed-fleet proposals is that we need a certain minimum number of aircraft in order to do the full-blown military mission in times of conflict. For the Aurora, this was detecting, tracking, and potentially attacking Godless Communist Horde submarines during the Cold War and possible warmer follow-on.
> 
> When not engaged in their primary role, such aircraft can conduct lesser missions, such as fishery patrols and pollution violations.
> 
> Aircraft designed purely for those lesser missions cannot, however, detect, track, and kill GCH submarines when the need arises - and should conflict flare up, nobody cares about fish and pollution anymore.
> 
> One therefore ends up with two fleets and a higher overall cost, as one still needs that certain minimum number of fully-capable aircraft, now under-employed in peacetime, and has a bunch of unnecessary lesser aircraft buzzing around, too.
> 
> There is a big difference between cost-effectiveness and operational effectiveness and, in any military organization, the latter is, and has to be, trump.




......And there was much celebration because at least one person understands.

Mark,



> The Auroras have already received an improved navigation system, global positioning systems *and better radar * under the first two phases of the refurbishment.



No they have not.  I dont know where this comes from but there is no new radar installed on the CP-140.


----------



## aesop081

> But it might be fine for the civilian missions the Auroras fly, mainly in support of the Canadian Coast Guard, such as fisheries patrol.



Fisheries patrols are done for DFO, not the Coast Guard. Dedicated fisheries patrols are done within the canadian EEZ and are done by PAL with DFO officers on board.


----------



## observor 69

geo said:
			
		

> It's the opposition's job to hammer the government in power over what it is they aren't doing.... Same aas the conservatives did before.... That's their job... no matter how self serving it might appear to be.  When you're in the opposition's seat, money is no object.



That would be "constructive, reasoned " criticism leading to the development of the best thought out policy. 
Ya I know I'm dreaming.


----------



## Haletown

so if I understand what Coderre is doing under the guise of ""constructive, reasoned " criticism", he is cherry picking bits of data, ignoring any facts that don't support his intentions and spinning a tall tale just so he can attempt to convince voters  in the IMP riding that they should vote Liberal because the nasty government wants to take their jobs (their entitlements?) away.

Think I  get it now.


----------



## Jammer

....and so begins the...wait for it...."The Poseidon Adventure"....
(I slay me.)


----------



## MarkOttawa

CDN Aviator: Of course the fisheries patrols are in support of DFO.  Sorry for the mistake, I was confusing with the CCG ships doing the surface fisheries patrol carrying (armed) Fishery Officers.  Just to repeat for others: my point--get the Air Force out of most civilian maritime patrol business, and get them some new planes so they can concentrate on the military side and do it better.  Meanwhile create a single, multi-role civilian fleet (of the size required) that is also more capable.  And the Q Series seems well suited for the civil role--business for Bombardier which the politicos like--whereas its Astor would not be suitable for the broad range of Air Force patrol needs.

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

This looks hopeful (except for the Astor bit at the end):
http://thechronicleherald.ca/print_article.html?story=997479



> There are good arguments for replacing the Aurora maritime patrol planes, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Monday, which suggests the government may not go ahead with plans to refurbish the planes in Nova Scotia.
> 
> The government won’t announce its decision until a week from today, but Mr. MacKay’s comments leave little doubt he is leaning toward buying new planes rather than spending more money on the 18 Auroras, 14 of which are based at 14 Wing Greenwood.
> 
> "Would you feel safe getting in a 40-year-old car driving at high speed down the Trans-Canada Highway?" he said. "These pilots have to get in this equipment, Sea Kings and Auroras, and fly out over the North Atlantic in February in some pretty difficult weather conditions. So we need to ensure that we have proper, safe and efficient equipment."
> 
> At a news conference in Halifax on Monday morning, Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre attacked Mr. MacKay for considering replacing the Auroras, saying the decision would put 2,000 jobs at risk.
> 
> "Those planes have a capacity to be perfect up to 2025," Mr. Coderre said. "If we are replacing them . . . and we’re stalling those other (upgrades), you will have kind of a gap in some years when Canada won’t be able to fulfil its own military duty."..
> 
> According to The Canadian Press, the military is considering two aircraft to replace the Auroras: Boeing’s P-8 Poseidon and Bombardier’s Astor. *If the military were to buy the Bombardier plane rather than refurbish the Auroras, that could mean jobs going to Quebec instead of Nova Scotia. Mr. MacKay said it would be surprising if Mr. Coderre opposed that* [emphasis added].
> 
> "When’s the last time a Quebec MP went down to Atlantic Canada to argue for more jobs in the aerospace industry?" he said.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Loachman

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Just to repeat for others: my point--get the Air Force out of most civilian maritime patrol business, and get them some new planes so they can concentrate on the military side and do it better.


I would suspect that (as I said in an earlier post), if we buy a big enough fleet of aircraft suitable  - both in terms of fleet size and composition - for the military role then there would be ample to do the leftover business for which you're proposing to buy this second, civilian, fleet until war breaks out. Why buy two fleets when one would suffice? Do we really need to waste more money on unnecessary stuff?

Besides, I do not know if we want to get out of these lesser tasks. We do a number of non-military missions with the Griffon fleet too, including counter-drug work in support of the RCMP, and this adds variety while also giving training value. This is one of the things that makes us so flexible. If you do split the roles, you'll end up with a bunch of Maritime Patrol guys boring themselves to death sitting around doing nothing or flying the same old routine training missions over, and over, and over, and over again. Doing a real mission, even a simple one, adds a little spice. We, for example, could plan an airmobile activity and go out and fly it with nobody in the back. We'd get training value out of it, and put Xs in all of the necessary boxes, but it's so much more satisfying and worthwhile if we've got a few full loads of Infantry. CDN Aviator and his brethren can confirm or deny that it works this way for them.



			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Meanwhile create a single, multi-role civilian fleet (of the size required) that is also more capable.



More capable than a modern Aurora replacement? I don't think that that's either likely nor necessary.

I cannot understand why you persist with what seems clearly illogical to me. Those that perform this role have spoken. Their thoughts, ideas, and comments are good enough for me. I'm not going to try and tell them that they're wrong.


----------



## Loachman

"Would you feel safe getting in a 40-year-old car driving at high speed down the Trans-Canada Highway?" he said. "These pilots have to get in this equipment, Sea Kings and Auroras, and fly out over the North Atlantic in February in some pretty difficult weather conditions. So we need to ensure that we have proper, safe and efficient equipment."

Mr MacKay obviously gets it.

"At a news conference in Halifax on Monday morning, Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre attacked Mr. MacKay for considering replacing the Auroras, saying the decision would put 2,000 jobs at risk."

Coderre obviously does not. He would rather put crews's lives and their mission at risk rather than some jobs, of which his own is indubitably his greatest concern.

"Those planes have a capacity to be perfect up to 2025," Mr. Coderre said.

"Perfect". Right. Perfect what?

"If we are replacing them . . . and we’re stalling those other (upgrades), you will have kind of a gap in some years when Canada won’t be able to fulfil its own military duty."..

Like all of the other gaps courtesy of the former government.

"When’s the last time a Quebec MP went down to Atlantic Canada to argue for more jobs in the aerospace industry?" he said.

I suspect that Mr MacKay is just having a little fun at Coderre's expense with his ASTOR suggestion.


----------



## Haletown

""When’s the last time a Quebec MP went down to Atlantic Canada to argue for more jobs in the aerospace industry?" he said.

[size=10pt]*Ouch !!  *[/size]

Wonder if Mr Coderre could be convinced to go to the UK and provide his old aircraft advice to the RAF over what to do with the Nimrods.

Those old frames just killed one crew.


----------



## Bulls Eye

> I would suspect that (as I said in an earlier post), if we buy a big enough fleet of aircraft suitable  - both in terms of fleet size and composition - for the military role then there would be ample to do the leftover business for which you're proposing to buy this second, civilian, fleet until war breaks out. Why buy two fleets when one would suffice? Do we really need to waste more money on unnecessary stuff?



The unnecessary stuff is *necessary* for domestic maritime law enforcement because it is simply not cost-effective to utilize a military asset for a mission that otherwise can be executed by a non-military asset.


----------



## prom

Bulls Eye said:
			
		

> The unnecessary stuff is *necessary* for domestic maritime law enforcement because it is simply not cost-effective to utilize a military asset for a mission that otherwise can be executed by a non-military asset.



Just to make sure I am reading your idea correctly; You suggest 1 CF Fleet of MPA's as well as another civillian fleet controled by or contracted by a seperate goverment dept. If that is the case wouldnt it be more expensive to maintain both fleets and the resulting training and salaries for the additional fleet? If you look at the costs, I thought that it would be cheaper to simply procure and train crews for the AF as well as a modern aircraft of a number suitable to do both jobs as they stand, or expand in the future. Or as other posters have said that UAV's with proper equipment load outs could be used to augment the MPA Fleet. I know it is a dual fleet, howerver the difference is that it is not a civillian fleet. That is, in a time of war it can be used quickly used with little modification or training, where as the civillian fleet would/could need major modifications ,not to mention trained crews, that can use the airframe in the new threat enviroment.

I've said before this is all out of my lane, but it just dont make sence to matain both a mil. and a civ. patrol fleet. Reserve role perhaps?


----------



## Kirkhill

I think, to copy from Edward, that the correct answer is "It depends".  

It depends the weight, size and cost of the equipment you need to put in the air to conduct ASW, ASuW and Fisheries Patrols
It depends on the weight, size and cost and number of personnel you need to put in the air to man that kit
It depends on the weight, size, cost of an aircraft to carry aforementioned equipment and personnel
It depends on the resulting range and speed of the aircraft
It depends on the necessary frequency of patrols
It depends on the necessary maintenance
It depends on the necessary training.

Crunch the numbers on King Airs, CP-140s, P-8s, CF-18s and assorted UAVs and satellites then we can have an informed discussion.


----------



## MarkOttawa

prom:  I'm afraid I started this debate--excerpt from comment below:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/66394/post-646943.html#msg646943


> ...
> A thought: why not separate general maritime, and arctic, surveillance duties (including vessel identification, pollution detection, fishery enforcement) and part of marine search and rescue from the Air Force and make them a civilian mission? As Transport Canada is already doing for pollution detection with a modified Bombardier Q Series.
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/12/marine-pollution-surveillance-aircraft.html
> 
> Fisheries and Oceans meanwhile contracts with Provincial Airlines for three Beach King Air 200s for maritime surveillance, two east, one west coast (Aurora work for DFO also noted at link).
> http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/backgrou/2004/hq-ac20a_e.htm
> 
> In fact Q Series, modified by Field Aviation, are used in the general maritime role by Iceland (eight hour endurance), the US, Sweden, Japan and Australia.
> http://www.fieldav.com/pdf/press_20070507.pdf
> http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=3_0&lang=en&file=/en/3_0/pressrelease.jsp%3Fgroup%3D3_0%26lan%3Den%26action%3Dview%26mode%3Dlist%26year%3Dnull%26id%3D4724%26sCateg%3D3_0
> 
> Transport Canada could well operate such a fleet (despite their effort to become mainly a non-operational agency) on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Coast Guard, Environment Canada, CBSA/RCMP, CF as required, and others.
> 
> The Air Force would then presumably need fewer maritime patrol planes (whether Auroras or replacement) that would concentrate on military missions such as ASW and armed interdiction (and terrestrial surveillance, e.g. Afstan?).
> 
> And, if the Field Aviation Bombardiers actually fit the bill for such a broad suite of missions as outlined above, acquiring them would be a political plus I would imagine.
> 
> Some UAVs would also come in handy for maritime/arctic missions (operated by the Air Force for both military and civilian missions).



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## aesop081

Mark, i think i missed this originaly



> The Air Force would then presumably need fewer maritime patrol planes (whether Auroras or replacement) that would concentrate on military missions such as ASW and armed interdiction (and terrestrial surveillance, e.g. Afstan?).



We currently have 18 Auroras in service. This was an insuficient number to begin with. When you account for aircraft unservicabilities, long-term priodic maintenance and TLIR, having less aircraft than that would not allow us to function even if we did not have to handle the routine patrols.


----------



## Kirkhill

I don't doubt that we need more than 18 aircraft to maintain a serviceable fleet and get the job(s) done that we want.

But let's just suppose this for a moment. 

Suppose we need a fleet of x number of squadrons aircraft,
Suppose further that we start an iteration from a stipulation of 14 aircraft per squadron, 

Now the question:

I have the funds to buy 14 MPAs for each squadron
OR
I can opt to buy 12 MPAs and 12 King Air Fisheries Patrol aircraft for the same money thus generating 24 platforms 

I am assuming these are equivalent, all-in life-cycle costs
I am also assuming that any capability deficiencies and spare air frame requirements are made up by the rest of the x-1 squadrons available to us

Which is the better buy?

14 MPAs
or 
12 MPAs and 12 King Airs

I don't know the answer.  

I am just suggesting that until numbers are crunched estimates of courses of action don't have much precision.


----------



## aesop081

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Which is the better buy?
> 
> 14 MPAs
> or
> 12 MPAs and 12 King Airs
> 
> I don't know the answer.



Maybe i wasnt clear.

We have 18 CP-140 total. Those aircraft are shared between 404, 405, 407 sqns as well as MP&EU. Those 18 are barely enough to fullfill what you could call a purely "military" role let alone the more "civilian/ law enforcement" roles.


So saying that its "14 MPA per sqn or 14 MPA plus 14 civi patrol planes" doesnt solve anything.  We are short MPAs as it is.  Even if we were to be removed from the sovereignty patrol buisness tomorow morning, we would still be short aircraft.


----------



## Bulls Eye

> Which is the better buy?
> 
> 14 MPAs
> or
> 12 MPAs and 12 King Airs
> 
> I don't know the answer.



This is perhaps a great question to work with. *IF* the requirement was for 14 aircraft, and this were to be compared to an alternative model of going with 12 military MPA's and 12 King Air special missions aircraft. This model would imply that the operating cost (all-in including capital, etc.) of two military MPA's is the equivalent of 12 King Air's (or similar type).

This hypothetical model also and simply impliest then that the cost of one military MPA is the equivalent of 6 King Air's, or in other words, a King Air asset is only 16.7% the cost of a military MPA.

Can this be anywhere accurate?

The true benefit here is hidden not in the number of aircraft, but in the number of hours (surveillance presence) that can be created. Assuming that the military MPA's will do 1,000 hours per year each, with 14 aircraft, that's 14,000 hours of surveillance per year. I suggest that the King Air's would easily do 1,750 hours per year. Given this assumption, then the model of 12 military naval aircraft, and 12 King Air's yields 33,000 hours. Heck, that might even be too many King Air's!

What is does suggest though, is that it is extremely cost and operationally effective to use a non-military asset to focus on missions that otherwise does not require military presence. 

Of course, the King Air would be incapable of completing 100% of a military MPA mission, but would certainly contribute to creating a significant domestic law enforcement presence.


----------



## eurowing

As I remember it from my MWO in 80ish when I was a Cpl.....  He said, we asked for 48 CP140s, said we could do the job with 36 we got 18.   He said, we don't always get what we need.   It struck me as very interesting that we asked for more than we wanted, but got half of what we needed.  Now, to be fair, I can't vouch for his account, but it is an accurate account of what he stated.  Just something I never forgot.


----------



## Kirkhill

Bulls Eye:

Just to be clear.  I have absolutely no idea of the relative life cycle costs of a fully equipped and crewed CP-140 vice a King Air equipped for Fisheries and Environmental patrols.  As you noted it was purely hypothetical and an opening for debate.

Cheers.


----------



## eerickso

Good idea for air shows

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YRVDUB7Drk&feature=related


----------



## aesop081

Its in Japanese but the video is pretty representative of the buisness we do

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgU8aX6Nevs&feature=related


----------



## Sub_Guy

Bring back the Argus!   We had a decent fleet of those bad boys and they had legs, 31 hours now that's a patrol.   Canadian made


----------



## Loachman

Numbers of aircraft and numbers of hours and costs of airframes are meaningless.

They do not reflect capability.

Range, endurance, and onboard sensors are not reflected in those numbers.

In the days before thermal imagery and modern airborne radar, back when crews relied upon naked eyes and binoculars, your comparisons would have had some validity.

Not today.

King Airs would not have the range and endurance of Auroras. One would burn up many hours just in transit to and from patrol areas as aircraft would have to rotate in and out more frequently. Lack of comparable sensors could require more aircraft to cover the same area as one Aurora. More crews would have to be trained and paid to operate them. One could well end up spending as much money, or even more, in the long run and still not have the flexibility that a proper platform would give.

A suggestion that a King Air could fly almost twice as many hours than an Aurora annually is also meaningless, unless you can back that up.

It's not as simple as you think, and that's why we pay smart guys with more rank than me and experience in the applicable field to gather ALL of the appropriate and relevant information and work out decent solutions (whether or not the government accepts and funds such recommendations is a different matter).


----------



## aesop081

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Bring back the Argus!   We had a decent fleet of those bad boys and they had legs, 31 hours now that's a patrol.   Canadian made



 :rofl:

a 10 hour MPAT will cure your system of the above comment.


----------



## Bulls Eye

Loachman, you are absolutely correct, the numbers do not reflect capability. The King Air, does not have the endurance, range, or the drop capabilities of the Aurora. The Aurora is truly a workhorse for the mission it does. I completely and totally concur that the King Air, or any other civilian capability for that matter is *not* anywhere near or should be considered to be a replacement to any MPA military capability.

Canada needs a military MPA presence, but does not need it to be the only source of domestic maritime surveillance capability. It is simply not cost-effective to have military MPA's performing the maritime surveillance requirements of *ALL* government departments.

Those King Air guys have some of the best point target detection capability in the world and some of them are using fully multimode radars that use at least SpotSAR, ISAR and StripSAR, GMTI, and SeaMTI, positively identify ships at night and are a significant contribution to the RMP.

As for numbers, I am also aware that the existing King Air program pumped out more than 7,000 hours in the last fiscal year on 4 aircraft. People here may may be aware how many hours the 18 Auroras put out. However, this comparison is fundamentally not correct. Those King Air's may have put out those hours, but they do not have ESM or MAD, endurance or drop capabilities. They are used for a non-military function. That is not to say, however, that they do not contribute to military objectives because they do contribute. The detection, classification and identification of a target at sea, is a significant contribution.

The goal here, however, is to not compare what one program does versus another. Both are needed. You need military assets to cover military missions, and you need civilian assets to cover civilian requirements. It is simply not cost effect to use military assets for non-military functions. Otherwise, lets replace all the police vehicles in Canada with military tanks. Hmmm, come to think of it, that could actually be a little fun  ;D


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Bring back the Argus!   We had a decent fleet of those bad boys and they had legs, 31 hours now that's a patrol.   Canadian made



Yeah and there's one sitting on top of a pedestal outside the gate at Greenwood....we could just flash that sucker up and put her to work!! :


----------



## observor 69

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Bring back the Argus!   We had a decent fleet of those bad boys and they had legs, 31 hours now that's a patrol.   Canadian made



Flying into a foreign airport, "Say type of aircraft again."     Argus ??

Try and get avgas for it today.

31 hour patrol and another 31 hours for the body to recover.


----------



## George Wallace

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Flying into a foreign airport, "Say type of aircraft again."     Argus ??
> 
> Try and get avgas for it today.
> 
> 31 hour patrol and another 31 hours for the body to recover.



I suppose you could also say: "Try finding engines for it today?"  

I suppose an upgraded, redesigned Argus would have no problems with new engines finding AVGAS.


...................................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
So?  Where has our AeroSpace Industry gone............................since Bombardier and its Government "Grants" and "Loans" has bought up and closed down all the competition?


----------



## MarkOttawa

It's not just the King Air--the capabilities of modified Bombardier Q Series might be worth looking at:
http://www.fieldav.com/pdf/press_20070507.pdf
http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=3_0&lang=en&file=/en/3_0/pressrelease.jsp%3Fgroup%3D3_0%26lan%3Den%26action%3Dview%26mode%3Dlist%26year%3Dnull%26id%3D4724%26sCateg%3D3_0
http://www.tc.gc.ca/mediaroom/releases/atl/2006/06-a015e.htm
http://www.tc.gc.ca/mediaroom/backgrounders/b04-M126e.htm
http://www.marinepollution.gc.ca/eng/surveillance/aerial_surveillance/captured_images/menu.htm

Second last link gives patrol hours.  Last link has photos and lots of technical detail.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Or perhaps this Lockheed Martin Airship might be a useful tool in the toolbag.

http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/jdw/jdw031006_1_n.shtml

As I understand Loachman and Bulls Eye it's all about the sensor and time on station for surveillance.  Reconnaissance, going out an looking at a specific target requires speed and stealth.   Strike, going out and eliminating threats, well that depends on what you want to strike with.  All sorts of different needs requiring different platforms.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Tranport Canada actually uses four Bombardier aircraft for aerial surveillance (the three mentioned in this Oct. 2006 report, plus the new one with the advanced sensor suite; another one with that suite appears to be being readied for Pacific use--I can't figure out if it's a new plane or one of the other three being upgraded):
http://www.ssopfund.gc.ca/english/outreach3.asp



> A representative of Transport Canada, Mr. Louis Armstrong, highlighted several initiatives aimed at increasing the effectiveness of the National Aerial Surveillance Program (NASP), notably the acquisition of a new suite of remote sensing equipment for the Dash 8 pollution surveillance aircraft. The NASP utilizes three aircraft located strategically across Canada to conduct pollution surveillance. Two of these aircraft are leased from Transport Canada's Aircraft Services Directorate, and the third is under contracted from Provincial Airlines Limited. During the November meeting Transport Canada noted that over-flight statistics indicates a decline in observed oil pollution over the past few years. It was also emphasized that there has been a recent increase in aircraft patrol hours funded through the Oceans Action Plan, coupled with the acquisition of earth observation imagery to task aircraft.



So in fact there already is a fleet of seven civilian aircraft doing maritime patrol for the Canadian government: four Bombardiers doing pollution patrols for Transport Canada and the three  PAL King Airs doing fisheries patrols for DFO.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## aesop081

Bulls Eye said:
			
		

> Those King Air guys have some of the best point target detection capability in the world and some of them are using fully multimode radars that use at least SpotSAR, ISAR and StripSAR, GMTI, and SeaMTI, positively identify ships at night and are a significant contribution to the RMP.



This is what the PAL King Airs are using for radar :

http://www.provincialaerospace.com/AMSDRadar.htm


----------



## h3tacco

As a side note.

DHC had planned to sell the CF the CP-142 (MP version of CT-142 Gonzo) to replace the CP-121 Tracker and its maritime surveillance role. I don't know the full story but DND never did buy it and never did really replace the CP-121. As people have already noted Bombardier has subsequently sold Coastal Surveillance Dash-8s to various countries.


----------



## Bandit1

But they have nowhere near the capabilities of the Aurora, so what would be the point here in Canada?

Bandit


----------



## h3tacco

You are correct that they wouldn't be able to handle the full role of missions of a CP-140. But at one time we had two fleets carrying out maritime surveillance the CP-140 and the CP-121 (three if you count the short lived CP-144 Challenger). Many of the missions carried out now by the CP-140 or PAL were handled by the CP-121. 

I believe at the end of the day a mixed fleet will be the most cost-effective. We did it in the past, we do it now, and we will do it in the future. 

If you look at the CF helos we have one fleet dedicated to SAR with no wartime role why wouldn't we do this for maritime surveillance.


----------



## aesop081

h3tacco said:
			
		

> I believe at the end of the day a mixed fleet will be the most cost-effective.



We already have that in the CP-140/A & PAL arrangement. As far as i'm concerned, it works well.


----------



## Bandit1

h3tacco said:
			
		

> You are correct that they wouldn't be able to handle the full role of missions of a CP-140. But at one time we had two fleets carrying out maritime surveillance the CP-140 and the CP-121 (three if you count the short lived CP-144 Challenger). Many of the missions carried out now by the CP-140 or PAL were handled by the CP-121.
> 
> I believe at the end of the day a mixed fleet will be the most cost-effective. We did it in the past, we do it now, and we will do it in the future.
> 
> If you look at the CF helos we have one fleet dedicated to SAR with no wartime role why wouldn't we do this for maritime surveillance.



But you can't afford to run 2 fleets anymore - that was the whole reason of getting an aircraft which could handle all the capabilities necessary for MP, and as the Aurora has shown, it can do everything we need it to.  The only thing is, we now need new airframes, which is why I'm a little concerned that any movement on the project is slow in coming.

I don't disagree that a mixed fleet will be cost effective - I'd gladly have some UAV's helping out occasionally.  But the fact is, we need all of our Aurora's air worthy because there is nothing, not even the P-8, in my opinion, which will be able to do the same job as they can.

With regards to CF Helos - we've actually got 2 SAR types.  The Cormorant and some Griffs operate as land based SAR.  When the Cyclone comes on board next year, you'll see the Sea Kings put out to pasture (thank God!).  The Griffs, while they operate as a utility a/c, can be used in times of war, but here's the thing - they have so many limitations to them that they can't operate in theatres such as Afghanistan.  That is why we need the new Chinooks that (hopefully) will be coming soon.

Bandit


----------



## Bulls Eye

PAL apparently has 4 of those smaller King Air's doing work for GOC; one in Comox, one in Halifax and two in Sin John's. I was also told that that two of them operate with the Litton APS-504(V)5, and the other two with the brand new ELTA EL/M2022A(V)3. Upgrades for the other two soon I would assume.

Looks also like they are spreading their wings a bit:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1283945/M/


----------



## Kirkhill

If the driver for determining the kit necessary to successfully complete a mission, and ultimately you need a combination of surveillance sensors to detect targets of interest, recce sensors to put eyeballs on target and some method of putting explosives or boots on the ground then how would something like this fit into the mix?

The HUNTIR camera  is a 40mm munition that can be launched from any grenade launcher and hangs over a target broadcasting images for up to 7 minutes.  Presumably similar airdeployable sensors wouldn't need the charge to launch them.  Do you need charges to deploy sonobuoys?

How many could a King Air/Q400/Global Express/CP-140/P8/Predator/Global Hawk carry?  Does it allow a high altitude aircraft to stay above the weather and recce contacts?  Does it reduce the number of times you have to go under the weather?  Can it be used for target spotting and BDA?

What might be the full spectrum capabilities of a Predator with a SAR-MTI radar, EO FLIR turret, droppable cameras and a couple of Hellfires?  

Does that reduce the risk and boredom that crews have to face? Make the available crewed aircraft potentially more capable as flying command centres working with UAVs? Reduce the stress on the aircraft letting them last longer?

The answer to all of the above is yes for the marketers.  They could just as easily be no. They don't work in our application.  Or they work but not well enough to be bothered.

But the question is that the platform (and the crew) are dependent on the sensors and weapons and those are dependent on the mission.

I am constantly challenged by people that build a pretty building to make a product then expect me to fit the process into the building after they have built it.

Edit: PS If we can't afford multiple platforms then why are we contemplating the Chinook?  If Multi-Purpose is the way to go the why aren't we buying more "Multi-Purpose" Griffons?


----------



## Bandit1

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Edit: PS If we can't afford multiple platforms then why are we contemplating the Chinook?  If Multi-Purpose is the way to go the why aren't we buying more "Multi-Purpose" Griffons?



I can't answer for the other items that you posted because I haven't done any research on them, but I can comment on the above.

Sure, you can use Griffs for SAR, and also as personnel carriers.  But like many other choppers out there, they have their restrictions if they are going to be used in places of conflict.  As a result, when you strap more armour onto her, and have troops weighted at combat levels, then the inherent problems with the airframe become noticed.  Throw on top of that the fact that the Griffon can't operate in theatres where we need them the most, like Afghanistan.

The Griffon is a all purpose utility chopper that doesn't do anything especially well.  With regards to the Chinook, they can move more troops, handle more of a payload, and can operate in theatres where the Griffon can't.  As a result of the forseeable acquisition of the Chinooks, as well, you'll see the vast majority of the Griffs set out to pasture, save for maybe a couple that will operate as SAR a/c at local air bases where necessary.

Hope this helps,

Bandit


----------



## h3tacco

Bandit1 said:
			
		

> But you can't afford to run 2 fleets anymore - that was the whole reason of getting an aircraft which could handle all the capabilities necessary for MP, and as the Aurora has shown, it can do everything we need it to.  The only thing is, we now need new airframes, which is why I'm a little concerned that any movement on the project is slow in coming.



I think the whole point of having two fleets is that it is cheaper. especially in O&M costs. We can't afford the cost of a full-blown MPA (LRPA) for every mission when not every mission needs the capability of a full blown MPA. We didn't replace the CP-121 not because we couldn't afford to fly them, but rather because we didn't have the capital funds to purchase a replacement aircraft.  



			
				Bandit1 said:
			
		

> I don't disagree that a mixed fleet will be cost effective - I'd gladly have some UAV's helping out occasionally.  But the fact is, we need all of our Aurora's air worthy because there is nothing, not even the P-8, in my opinion, which will be able to do the same job as they can.



Agree but there a lot things a P-8 (or other replacement aircraft) can do that the Aurora cannot. 



			
				Bandit1 said:
			
		

> With regards to CF Helos - we've actually got 2 SAR types.  The Cormorant and some Griffs operate as land based SAR.



My point was that some people have said we cannot afford a fleet that doesn't have a wartime role but we already have a number of fleets that do not have a wartime role. And we plan on purchasing new fleets without a wartime role. (FWSAR, Northern Utility Aircraft) Maritime surveillance is no different. However, even with dedicated SAR aircraft other fleets are still tasked with SAR. Just like if we had a dedicated Coastal Patrol Aircraft its big brother MPA would still fill a number a maritime surveillance roles and missions. 



			
				Bandit1 said:
			
		

> When the Cyclone comes on board next year, you'll see the Sea Kings put out to pasture (thank God!).



That is alot farther away than some people think.


----------



## Haletown

wonder what Coderre would make of this  . . 

Fatigue risks ground 39 US Navy Lockheed P-3C Orions
By Graham Warwick

The US Navy has grounded 39 of its 161 Lockheed P-3C Orion maritime-patrol aircraft because of structural fatigue concerns. Ten of the aircraft deployed operationally are included among those grounded.

Affected aircraft "are beyond known structural limits on the lower section of the P-3", says Naval Air Systems Command, adding this is the third time since 2005 that the US Navy has grounded part of its Orion fleet because of structural concerns

rtr    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/12/17/220352/fatigue-risks-ground-39-us-navy-lockheed-p-3c-orions.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

My point was not that we have two types (fleets) of fixed-wing maritime patrol planes for the Air Force.   The fact is we already have two different civilian patrol fleets (Transport Canada Bombardiers for pollution surveillance, PAL King Airs doing fisheries patrol for DFO), plus the Aurora fleet.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/66394/post-648676.html#msg648676

Why not look at one, more capable, civilian fleet (maybe with a properly equipped patrol Q Series) to do the non-military missions, if that (and it's a big if) is cost-effective.  Such a fleet should be able to reduce the civilian work done by the Air Force and perhaps therefore the number of aircraft required for the military work--which might make it easier to persuade the government the replace the Auroras with new planes.

This is what Field Aviation says about the aircraft it is modifying for the Icelandic Coast Guard:
http://www.fieldav.com/pdf/press_20070507.pdf



> The Dash 8 Q300 Maritime surveillance Aircraft (MSA) has factory equipped long-range fuel tanks giving more than 8 hours endurance, and Field will outfit the aircraft with a comprehensive sensor suite that includes a 360 degree maritime search radar, a side-looking radar and an electronic-optic/infra-red camera pod. All sensors will feed into an integrated data handling system from L-3 Communications - Integrated Systems.
> 
> The Icelandic MSA will have multi-mission capabilities, including maritime sovereignty patrol, interdiction, search and rescue, medical transportation and other first-response activities. It is equipped with launch tube for flares and oil sampling buoys, and Field’s certificated air-operable rear door will allow the
> Coast Guard to air drop inflatable life rafts and paratroop rescue personnel.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Slackeur

Perhaps if the objective is to reduce commitments required of military aircraft to patrol work, the key is to not just look at the usage/composition of the civilian fleet, but to look at what options there are to increase the effectiveness of both fleets with a good force multiplier. If time spent on searching and building the picture of what's going on off our coasts can be cut back on both these fleets, allowing them to focus on ID'ing and response, both fleets will achieve better cost effectiveness. Whether the best bet for this is a long endurance, high altitude UAV, a ground based radar system, or possibly a surveillance satellite, is a whole other topic. 

As far as what the future MPA aircraft should be, the P-8 stands out as the only real choice. The Global Express platform does not seem to have the growth potential required to accommodate all the systems required for a proper multi-role MPA aircraft (sonobuoy dispenser, radar, FLIR, processing, weapons fit). If a Canadian made solution is desired, the best bet would be the C-Series (if it survives the latest go-ahead). It has far more growth potential, and right from the get go, the design for a military mission version could be done concurrently. However, with its size, it would be very close to the P-8, and outfitted for similar roles, which would seem to make its development a bit redundant. Not to mention it would be a whole new program with a whole new load of technical issues. Consequently the logical choice would seem to be the P-8, and let the industrial offsets be the economic benefit instead of a homegrown effort.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Slackeur said:
			
		

> Perhaps if the objective is to reduce commitments required of military aircraft to patrol work, the key is to not just look at the usage/composition of the civilian fleet, but to look at what options there are to increase the effectiveness of both fleets with a good force multiplier. If time spent on searching and building the picture of what's going on off our coasts can be cut back on both these fleets, allowing them to focus on ID'ing and response, both fleets will achieve better cost effectiveness. Whether the best bet for this is a long endurance, high altitude UAV, a ground based radar system, or possibly a surveillance satellite, is a whole other topic.
> 
> As far as what the future MPA aircraft should be, the P-8 stands out as the only real choice. The Global Express platform does not seem to have the growth potential required to accommodate all the systems required for a proper multi-role MPA aircraft (sonobuoy dispenser, radar, FLIR, processing, weapons fit). If a Canadian made solution is desired, the best bet would be the C-Series (if it survives the latest go-ahead). It has far more growth potential, and right from the get go, the design for a military mission version could be done concurrently. However, with its size, it would be very close to the P-8, and outfitted for similar roles, which would seem to make its development a bit redundant. Not to mention it would be a whole new program with a whole new load of technical issues. Consequently the logical choice would seem to be the P-8, and let the industrial offsets be the economic benefit instead of a homegrown effort.



Please see: "Let's Buy These Aircraft" - Please read these before submitting your choice.


----------



## The Bread Guy

CF's latest word on the subject.......

*The Future of the CP-140 Aurora*
News release NR–07.105, 18 Dec 07

OTTAWA - The Department of National Defence today confirmed its commitment to the Aurora fleet through continued modernization and structural upgrades, keeping the aircraft flying until 2020. As part of the Government of Canada’s pledge to ensure the Canadian Forces have the equipment they need and provide value for taxpayers’ dollars, the Aurora modernization will ensure that the CF continues to protect Canada’s maritime and northern sovereignty.

“The Department will capitalize on these investments by upgrading the structure on the majority of the fleet,” said the Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay, Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. “The investment will keep the aircraft safe and operationally viable until 2020.”

“I am pleased to let our Aurora communities know that this valuable information gathering aircraft will continue its proud legacy,” said Lieutenant-General Angus Watt, the Chief of the Air Staff. “The Aurora will provide the Air Force with a significant surveillance capability until such time as a future replacement capability is acquired.”

As part of its reexamination of long-term projects, the Department has rescinded a work suspension and moved forward with the next phase of Aurora modernization which will incorporate radar, computer and other systems on Aurora aircraft. Core structural upgrades will also be carried out to ensure the longevity and safe operation of these 10 aircraft.

Three aircraft have been delivered under phase two of the fleet modernization program and three are undergoing these communication and navigation upgrades. The prototype aircraft for the third phase is in for a two-year modification and testing period, and is expected to fly in early 2009.

The Air Force and Navy are assessing and defining their needs for a long-range maritime surveillance aircraft to succeed the Aurora. Technology upgrades already made in the fleet may be transferred and reinvested in the replacement aircraft.  

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Media Liaison Office
Department of National Defence
(613) 996-2353 or 2354

Press Secretary
Minister of National Defence
(613) 996-3100


----------



## MarkOttawa

If I read the release right, only ten aircraft will be fully upgraded.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Looks like it, so for those in the know what will happen to the remaining 5 aircraft?


----------



## Bograt

cheeky switch on
Static displays- Comox, Greenwood, Bermuda, St. John's NF and Hawaii.
Cheeky switch off


----------



## aesop081

The NFLD Grinch said:
			
		

> Looks like it, so for those in the know what will happen to the remaining 5 aircraft?



Reamaining 8.....

we have 18 CP-140s


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Ok, does that 8 include the CP-140A Arcturus?


----------



## aesop081

The NFLD Grinch said:
			
		

> Ok, does that 8 include the CP-140A Arcturus?



No...if it did include the arcturus i would have said :

"We have 21 CP-140 / CP-140A"


We have 18 CP-140 Aurora, 2 CP-140A Arcturus that fly and 1 CP-140A Arcturus used as a ground training aid for technician training


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Ah ok. Should have known better than to look at the numbers from wikipedia

:cheers:


----------



## aesop081

The NFLD Grinch said:
			
		

> Ah ok. Should have known better than to look at the numbers from wikipedia
> 
> :cheers:



CP-140 Aurora :

140101, 140102,140103, 1404104,140105,140106,140107,140108,140109,140110,140111,140112,140113,140114,140115,140116,140117,140118

CP-140A Arcturus :

140119, 140120,140121


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Ok, didn't need the tail numbers. 

BTW from wikipedia:

Canada 
Canadian Forces Air Command (AIRCOM) 
404 Maritime Patrol and Training Squadron, CFB Greenwood, Nova Scotia 
405 Maritime Patrol Squadron, CFB Greenwood 
10 × CP-140 Aurora and 3 × CP-140A Arcturus 
407 Maritime Patrol Squadron, CFB Comox, British Columbia 
5 × CP-140 Aurora 

:cheers:


----------



## aesop081

The NFLD Grinch said:
			
		

> BTW from wikipedia:
> 
> Canada
> Canadian Forces Air Command (AIRCOM)
> 404 Maritime Patrol and Training Squadron, CFB Greenwood, Nova Scotia
> 405 Maritime Patrol Squadron, CFB Greenwood
> 10 × CP-140 Aurora and 3 × CP-140A Arcturus
> 407 Maritime Patrol Squadron, CFB Comox, British Columbia
> 5 × CP-140 Aurora



14 CP-140 Aurora and 3 CP-140A Arcturus ( one no loner flies ) are shared by :

404 MP&T Sqn, Greenwood
405 MP Sqn Greenwood
MP&EU Greenwood

( note that all 14 are not physicaly in ZX at any given time because of TLIR and AIMP)

4 CP-140 Aurora used by:

 407 MP Sqn, Comox


----------



## Nfld Sapper




----------



## FormerHorseGuard

yahoo news site is reporting the upgrades are back on

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/071218/canada/canada_aurora_planes


----------



## Nfld Sapper

You are a few replies behind, see post 147


----------



## C1Dirty

Mod edited to comply with Milnet.ca policy.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

C1Dirty said:
			
		

> *While some air force officers want the Poseidon*, a 737 converted into a surveillance aircraft, *others are recommending the purchase of a plane similar to the ASTOR* surveillance aircraft.



?? This is the first I've heard of Air Force types favouring the ASTOR ... am I out to lunch here or what?


----------



## MarkOttawa

More:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/999045.html


> ...
> The news that only 10 of the 18 planes would be refitted was buried in the news release. That, and the late afternoon timing, suggests the government is trying to play down the announcement.
> 
> Neither IMP nor the union that represents the workers at the plant was available for comment on Tuesday. And the Defence Department could not answer basic questions such as how much the work will cost, whether the reduction in the number of planes will reduce the number of patrols, when the military will buy replacement planes or where the planes that won’t be refitted are based.
> 
> Fourteen of the 18 Auroras are based at 14 Wing Greenwood.
> 
> "The 10, the majority of the fleet, keep us flying until 2020 and allow us to plan for a replacement of the Aurora," Mr. MacKay’s spokesman, Dan Dugas, said in an e-mail. "There will be a savings of a couple of hundred million because we aren’t going to put money into extending them beyond their best-before date like the Sea Kings. Money should be used to equip the forces with modern aircraft." ..
> 
> Mr. Coderre [liberal National Defence critic] said Tuesday that he’s glad that some of the work will go ahead, but he doesn’t understand why only 10 planes are being refitted.
> 
> "If it’s good for 10, it should be good for 18, so what’s the rationale here?" he said. "It will have an impact on the job loss. If we accept to modernize these planes, that means . . . what we’ve been saying is accurate."
> 
> Mr. Coderre predicts the reduction in the number of planes will affect operations.
> 
> "It will have an impact on the multi-mission factor, which is surveillance, which is intelligence gathering, which is antisubmarine warfare, and it will have an impact also on the smugglers. If we want to fulfil our job, we need those 18 planes."



Plus, from another defence expert:
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iphes8jvGm1s5oM20dVx20a6motg



> NEW GLASGOW, N.S. - The federal government's plan to keep 10 of the military's 18 maritime surveillance planes flying until 2020 could reduce Canada's ability to conduct search and rescue operations, says Green party Leader Elizabeth May.
> 
> May was responding to an announcement made Tuesday by Defence Minister Peter MacKay. "Are we to have a nearly 50 per cent reduction in that capacity?" May asked in a statement released Wednesday...
> 
> The issue is a sensitive one for MacKay and May. The Green party leader plans to run against MacKay in the next federal election, contesting the Nova Scotia riding of Central Nova.
> 
> There were reports Ottawa was leaning toward cancelling all further upgrades in favour of replacing the turboprop aircraft with new planes - a move that would have cost jobs in Nova Scotia, causing political grief for MacKay.
> 
> On Tuesday, MacKay announced the nearly 30-year-old aircraft will get structural improvements, new radar, computers and other systems. Some of the work will be done by IMP Aerospace near Halifax.
> 
> But May said the commitment is not good enough for Nova Scotia.
> 
> "This decision should worry Nova Scotians on a number of levels," May said. "Premier Rodney MacDonald thought he had a deal with ... MacKay to upgrade all 18 Auroras. Now, it appears he had half a deal."
> 
> As well, May wants to know if the Defence Department has already decided to buy new aircraft and whether studies have been done to show such a move would be more cost effective than refurbishing every Aurora...
> 
> The chief of air staff, Lt.-Gen. Angus Watt, has said he's pleased with the decision to upgrade 10 aircraft.
> 
> It remains unclear what will happen to the eight surplus planes.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If Mr. Coderre had done some long range planning in their decade in Office we would not be in this pickle now would we...... :


----------



## Kirkhill

Reading between the lines - 


Does this suggest retaining the 10 Auroras for MPA duties, acquiring a handful of Astors for battlefield surveillance and supplementing both with a small fleet of MALE/HALE UAVs like the Predators?


----------



## Sub_Guy

Mr. Coderre predicts the reduction in the number of planes will affect operations.  <---- Really?  Nice prediction, here's mine the team leading in the final minute by two scores will win the Superbowl, you heard it here first!


When I read between the lines I see it as a cost saving measure, a way to cut down costs.  Maintain 10, then when the next (NO ASTOR) aircraft comes our way we will be lucky to get 10.   Sure they can augment the fleet of 10 with UAV's, but 18 Auroras weren't enough, so surely 10 +UAV's  won't even come close.


----------



## Haletown

<snark on> wonder if the Aurora SAR Tech community knows Lizzie May & The Green Party are covering their six ? <snark off>


----------



## aesop081

Haletown said:
			
		

> <snark on> wonder if the Aurora SAR Tech community knows Lizzie May & The Green Party are covering their six ? <snark off>



No SAR techs in the Aurora world. None.


----------



## GAP

Lizzie May & The Green Party  couldn't give two hoots about anything that does not generate votes, of which they have few. This way they can say they helped support job in the area, other than that the CF and go crawl into a hole and die for all they care.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

I would say that's true of all the political parties...the moment we become dispensible we will be disposed of....see that old Kipling poem "Tommy"


----------



## Haletown

No SAR techs in the Aurora world. None.


ergo the snark on/off

Let's keep it our secret.  If Lizzie finds out,it could be politically embarrassing politically for her if voters learn she doesn't know her elbow from her ass when it comes to things military and so her comments are really just cheap politics designed to get headlines, not help the Forces get better equipment.


----------



## aesop081

Haletown said:
			
		

> ergo the snark on/off



Its not because we dont have SAR techs that we dont do SAR. When CC-115s out west are all down, the CP-140 is the duty FWSAR aircraft. We are often re-tasked while airborne to conduct searches at sea, ELT searches and other such SAR tasks. On Patrols we carry a Survival Kit Air droppable (SKAD) to assist survivors. There is both a sea and arctic version of the SKAD. With the sensor we have we are very capable as a search asset. Our comunications equipment allows us to be used as radio-relay and airborne command center for searches as well. We are trained to support the CH-149 Cormorant during night operations by dropping flares at regular inervals to allow rescues to be carried out.

Here is a picture of the arctic SKAD being dropped


----------



## Haletown

thnx  for the details.

In other really good news, maybe these new birds could also be backup SAR aircraft.

PR just out.

Merry Christmas to the RCAF !!

Military cargo planes get Treasury Board approval
By Murray Brewster, THE CANADIAN PRESS




OTTAWA - The Defence Department's long-awaited and controversial purchase of the newest version of the Hercules transport plane has been approved by the federal Treasury Board, defence sources say.

A replacement for the air force's aging C-130E and C-130H fleets was first proposed in the summer of 2006 by former defence minister Gordon O'Connor.

Sources said the $4.6-billion purchase of 17 C-130Js received funding approval last Thursday, but a contract has yet to be signed with U.S. aircraft giant Lockheed Martin.


----------



## MarkOttawa

More:
http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Front/999224.html



> The federal government’s plan to upgrade just over half its fleet of Aurora maritime patrol planes will leave huge gaps in the country’s coastal surveillance, according to several retired military pilots.
> 
> The Defence Department announced this week that it will make structural changes to 10 of the 18 Auroras. Replacing fatigued wings and tail sections and updating the data management systems is expected to keep the 10 flying until 2020.
> 
> "What it means is, we can only do about half of what we should be doing," said Terry Chester, a former Aurora pilot.
> 
> The big four-engine Auroras can fly about 8,000 kilometres without refuelling, scanning vast swaths of ocean on their missions.
> 
> Having fewer of them creates opportunities for people who smuggle drugs, fish illegally or empty ships’ oily bilge water into the ocean, rather than pay to dispose of it properly, said the retired colonel.
> 
> "It is going to be open season, and the bad guys are going to know that we can’t be there all the time," he said. "There’s going to have to be some gap-filling done."
> 
> The feds will be forced to augment coastal surveillance with unmanned aerial vehicles and satellites and by renting civilian aircraft, Mr. Chester said...
> 
> Mr. Chester credited Defence Minister Peter MacKay with brokering the compromise to improve 10 of the aircraft.
> 
> "We put a Band-Aid over the wound but we really need to get serious now about determining how we survey and protect our borders," Mr. Chester said.
> 
> Defence officials did not respond Wednesday to questions about the Auroras, 14 of which are based in Nova Scotia...
> 
> The military has already spent $955 million installing new surveillance, communications and navigation equipment in the Auroras.
> 
> *Finishing the work, including structural changes, shouldn’t cost more than another $500 million, said IMP owner Ken Rowe, whose company will do the work in Nova Scotia.
> 
> The company employs 1,500 people in its aerospace division. Hundreds of them work on the Aurora project.
> 
> "It’s the best Christmas present news we could have heard for our workers to give them stable work going forward for quite a number of years," Mr. Rowe said of the announcement* [emphasis added].
> 
> The upgraded planes could keep flying until 2030, he said.
> 
> "So it gives the military great flexibility . . . to make sure they get the right airplane at the right time with the latest technology down the road before the Auroras expire. And if they hadn’t done it, then they would have (been out of service) by about 2015, depending on how hard they fly them."
> 
> He’s hoping Defence Department officials will eventually decide to make the changes to additional Auroras.
> 
> "That may happen in the end," Mr. Rowe said.
> 
> "If they do 10, there may be a good chance they will do the rest if circumstances change of money availability, suitability of a replacement and how well these (upgraded aircraft) are doing in service."
> 
> Green Leader Elizabeth May said Wednesday she plans to press the feds for a better explanation of the decision not to upgrade all 18.
> 
> "Obviously, the cost of doing them all together now is going to be cheaper than buying new planes," she said.
> 
> "We need to ask some very hard questions right now (about) whether there’s a commitment from the Harper Conservatives to maintain the search and rescue capacity, the ability to monitor overfishing, to check for vessels that are illegally dumping fuel oil at sea.
> 
> "There are a whole range of things that Aurora aircraft are particularly well-suited to pursue, and once they’re refurbished and have extended their lifetime, that strikes me . . . as the most economically appropriate decision."



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

MarkOttawa;

You left this part out of the Chronicle Herald article (about 1/4 into it):


			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Canada bought 18 Auroras in 1980, *even though the air force had asked for more. *
> 
> "That was just barely enough because of the patrols that needed to be done and the area we needed to survey," Mr. Chester said.



Which is rather interesting as Mr Pugilese conteds that: 


			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Regrettably most of this debate is between* the air force, who never wanted the CP-140 * as they want to focus on the CF-18 replacement and the senior leadership of the CF and ADM MAT, who are all either serving or in the case of ADM MAT, retired army officers. Thus the debate is between those who do not care and those who do not want to know! Somewhat typical of today's CF.
> 
> The sad point is that Canada has been forgotten in the debate. The fact that Canada is a three ocean nation whose livelihood depends on the oceans has been completely ignored in the debate.



>>Kinda betrays the "editorializing" in the rest of that latter quote, eh?  :


----------



## hank011

So we are ignoring the fact that a multi role aircraft is being used primarily for surveilance and occasionally for ASW. I say keep the 10 for their ASW capability and buy a surveillance aircraft to augment them.

I have very little confidence in the opinion of a former pilot over the CDS. Everyone that was ever involved with the Aurora knows of its naturally declining serviceability rates(just like every aircraft ever built) and knows that the FLEI rate is predictable and available with the click of a mouse. The CDS is provided with the state of the airframes just like those who maintain them(maintainers, not bus drivers) and will make the best decision.

Access to information would tell any reporter serious enough about the program, what percentage of the fleet is normally unavailable as they are either in IMP being maintained or waiting for IMP to provide service or parts. One has to remember that IMP bought out or underbid on most of the maintenance contracts for the fleet. 

I am quite certain that if the AG looked into the various upgrade attempts involved in this program we would see what a financial mess it is to stick an aftermarket Tape deck into a 1981 Ford in 2007. Especially embarrassing since the US are retiring their airframes filled with properly designed equipment that we didnt upgrade to.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Haletown said:
			
		

> thnx  for the details.
> 
> In other really good news, maybe these new birds could also be backup SAR aircraft.
> 
> PR just out.
> 
> *Merry Christmas to the RCAF !!*
> 
> Military cargo planes get Treasury Board approval
> By Murray Brewster, THE CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OTTAWA - The Defence Department's long-awaited and controversial purchase of the newest version of the Hercules transport plane has been approved by the federal Treasury Board, defence sources say.
> 
> A replacement for the air force's aging C-130E and C-130H fleets was first proposed in the summer of 2006 by former defence minister Gordon O'Connor.
> 
> Sources said the $4.6-billion purchase of 17 C-130Js received funding approval last Thursday, but a contract has yet to be signed with U.S. aircraft giant Lockheed Martin.



RCAF? No such thing anylonger ....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I am sure if the Liberals had been in power for the last 55 years we would still have Lanc's with lifeboats slung under them as a primary SAR patrol aircraft.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Colin P said:
			
		

> I am sure if the Liberals had been in power for the last 55 years we would still have Lanc's with lifeboats slung under them as a primary SAR patrol aircraft.



I'm not a fan of the regime that bought them (Trudeau liberals) but let's be fair....the Libs bought the Aurora and the CF 18 for us.


----------



## Haletown

"
RCAF? No such thing any longer ...."

Well legally, technically yes.  But for us nostalgic types, the RCAF lives & soars on gilded wings above the strife and clouds and I believe always will     

And this Saturday night I will be having a toast to the RCAF with a  couple of recently retired members at a Christmas event.  It will be a fine moment.

I'm just channeling my father who survived Bomber Command and was a proud RCAF  member  who despised the whole forces amalgamation /Paul Hellier  activities.


----------



## x-zipperhead

hank011 said:
			
		

> I have very little confidence in the opinion of a former pilot over the CDS.



To be frank the opinion of a jaded former tech is of little interest to me.  Your negative thoughts on the subject  are well documented in previous threads an the Aurora.



			
				hank011 said:
			
		

> The CDS is provided with the state of the airframes just like those who maintain them(maintainers, not bus drivers) and will make the best decision.




You display a certain animosity towards pilots and I would assume aircrew in general.  Just for your information though, aircrew (inclucing the bus drivers) : are also briefed on the state of the airframes.


----------



## navig8ur

This is a good news story for the Aurora community.  10 Block three aircraft and the balance Block 2 (until they TX) is going to give us a good capability operating a platform we know how to fly.  The RNZAF had a significant increase in serviceability due to their new wings as they did not experience the fuel leak probs that old wings can give you.  

I know that many see this as a step back as the numbers decrease but for those of use who deal with the fleet daily, a fleet of 10 modern aircraft, while not optimum, is a decent capability.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Haletown said:
			
		

> "
> RCAF? No such thing any longer ...."
> 
> Well legally, technically yes.  But for us nostalgic types, the RCAF lives & soars on gilded wings above the strife and clouds and I believe always will
> 
> And this Saturday night I will be having a toast to the RCAF with a  couple of recently retired members at a Christmas event.  It will be a fine moment.
> 
> I'm just channeling my father who survived Bomber Command and was a proud RCAF  member  who despised the whole forces amalgamation /Paul Hellier  activities.



Nothing wrong with honouring the past but bear in mind, we have a lot of people coming to this site that don't know the difference and seeing titles such as RCAF and RCN might lead to confusion and errors on their parts. Not to mention those members that have never served in the RCN and RCAF and are serving now or have served can feel slighted by those that continue to refer to our present organizations by a title that now unfortunately exists in the History books.


----------



## Haletown

Don Newman calls out Lizzie May on the Aurora issue  . .  "sounds to me like regional pork barrel politics

Her spin is these are SAR aircraft primarily - with a major dollop of fishery and oil spill watch

Not a mention of a military use.

  http://www.cbc.ca/video/popup.html?http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/politics/politics_thu.wmv

  about  the 8:30 minute mark


----------



## aesop081

Block 2 conversion for us starts early in the new year. I'm glad to see that ASLEP will go ahead. Without it, it would have been pointless to go ahead with Block3. I'm slightly concerned though. Since Norway signed their contract for new wings first and now the US will be looking to buy the same, it puts us back in the line. The weapon system manager was quite concerned about this when he breifed us earlier this year. Some of the airframes we have will TX before we have the necessary kits to upgrade the structure.

As to the number of aircraft that are to be upgraded to block 3, well i cant wait to see what they decide to do as far as west / east coast numbers. My educated guess will be 6 east and 4 west but thats just a shot in the dark. 

I'm also eager to see how things pan out as far as the MOAT course is concerned. Some people may have to stay in their current positions longer than anticipated ( both by themselves and the career manager) while we operate the legacy systems.

Maybe once we have the new wings, we can bump our YFR to what it was before that 30% cut earlier this year.


----------



## MarkOttawa

The Chief of the Air Staff responds--which were the "candidates" (final para)?
http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/999487.html



> The general in charge of Canada’s air force says there will be just as much surveillance of the country’s coast lines, even with fewer Aurora patrol planes on the tarmac in the coming years.
> 
> The comment from Lt.-Gen. Angus Watt follows criticism of the decision this week to proceed with upgrades on only 10 of the country’s 18 Auroras, also known as CP-140s.
> 
> He called the notion that fewer aircraft will mean less surveillance "a myth."
> 
> In the short-term, by juggling flying schedules between upgraded and soon-to-be-retired planes, the air force will be able to increase patrol time, he said.
> 
> The nearly 30-year-old Auroras, based in Greenwood and Comox, B.C., fly a total average of 6,500 hours a year.
> 
> "We are not going to go below that," Watt insisted in an interview with The Canadian Press.
> 
> Watt, who took over the air force’s top job last summer, also took issue with reports that Arctic overflights have been discontinued because of budget restraint.
> 
> He said Aurora flights to the Arctic, which rely partly on line-of-sight observation, are routinely scaled back in the winter because it is dark most of the day and there is little activity to begin with.
> 
> Green party Leader Elizabeth May and Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre both slammed the decision not to upgrade all 18 planes, as had originally been planned by the Chretien government in the late 1990s. Defence Minister Peter MacKay made the choice after weighing whether it was worth proceeding with the refurbishment or buying a new aircraft.
> 
> May said she wonders whether cutting the upgrade nearly in half would mean a "50 per cent reduction in the (Aurora’s) capacity" to patrol the coastlines.
> 
> The air force has a variety of new fixed-wing planes and helicopters on order — or about to arrive — and has been painted as eagerly searching aircraft catalogues, looking to dump the Aurora.
> 
> Nothing could be further from the truth, said Watt, who has kept a low-profile throughout the controversy.
> 
> *"We don’t thumb through catalogues," he said. "That trivializes a very important matter."* [emphasis added--meanwhile some of us do our own dreaming, with Google rather than thumb ]..
> 
> When it became clear the airframe would need millions of dollars worth of repairs and reinforcements beyond the existing upgrades, staff began tossing around the idea of buying a replacement aircraft.
> 
> *Two possible candidates were examined and Watt said aircraft were available but they did not have all of the required electronic features needed, particularly for maritime surveillance* [emphasis added].



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Haletown

Last para noted.

Does anyone know which Government/MND chose to not participate in the the P8 program ??

Australia in wings as Boeing P-8 production starts

Production of the first Boeing P-8A Poseidon has begun, as negotiations continue for Australia to join the US Navy's Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft programme. The 737 derivative is to replace the navy's Lockheed Martin P-3C Orions from 2013.

Assembly of the fuselage for the first of five P-8s in the development programme - three flight-test and two ground-test aircraft - started at Spirit AeroSystems in Wichita, Kansas in early December. The fuselage for aircraft T-1 will be shipped to Boeing's 737 final-assembly plant in March 2008, is scheduled to roll out next August and fly in March 2009, following loads calibration. Development flight-testing will begin in September 2009, after its mission system has been installed.

"We are on track and entering build of the first five aircraft with highly certain dates because we are integrated with the 737 production line," says Bob Feldmann, Boeing vice-president and P-8A programme manager.

Australia last July decided to join the MMA programme, and is negotiating a memorandum of understanding to participate in spiral development of the P-8. The first round of negotiations was completed in October and a second is planned for February, says Capt Mike Moran, the USN's P-8 integrated product team lead. The navy, meanwhile, is beginning to define the aircraft's first capability upgrade spiral, he says.

India recently began evaluating cost proposals for its maritime patrol aircraft requirement, having assessed the P-8I, an Airbus A319 derivative from EADS, Ilyushin's Il-38, a modified Dassault Falcon 900 offered by Israel Aerospace Industries/Elta Systems, and a remanufactured P-3 from Lockheed.

Canada is meanwhile considering abandoning the incremental upgrade of its P-3-based CP-140 Auroras and buying new aircraft, with a decision expected by the end of 2007. However, Moran says: "We have not had any discussions with the Canadians." 


http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/12/29/220335/australia-in-wings-as-boeing-p-8-production-starts.html


----------



## geo

From my times traveling the great white north I have excellent memories of the 737.  A great reliable airframe.... even though it is getting to be a little long in the tooth.   Not necessarily the fastest craft flying, it has plenty of cargo space, has the capacity to carry tons of cargo (or equipment) and it's power plant puts out more than enough power.....


----------



## aesop081

geo said:
			
		

> and it's power plant puts out more than enough power.....



Geo, Its not just the amount of power produced that counts but more importantly how was the turbine can deliver that power. If things go to shit at 100 feet, we need engines that can deliver full power right away not in 30 seconds.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

geo said:
			
		

> A great reliable airframe.... even though it is getting to be a little long in the tooth.   Not necessarily the fastest craft flying, it has plenty of cargo space, has the capacity to carry tons of cargo (or equipment) and it's power plant puts out more than enough power.....



Depends on which version you are talking about: they did a major "Next-Gen" overhaul in the '90s and again in 2002 (& cruise is something on the order of Ma .8 ... faster than the C-17 and certainly fast enough!) : http://boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_tech1.html 

I, for one, would be *very* happy to fly it (then again, I would be happy to continue to get paid to fly anything!)


----------



## aesop081

John Galt,

I have a versted interest in this and the P-8 is *MY* choice.


----------



## MarkOttawa

This fascinating tidbit is buried in a story about the Cyclone delivery problems:
http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=97299&sc=89


> ...
> MacKay disclosed the Defence Department is in the initial stages of looking at "about a half a dozen possible replacement" options for eight of 18 old Aurora coastal patrol planes.
> 
> The air force is going ahead with structural upgrades of remaining Auroras...



Interesting that the Chief of the Air Staff has said that only two possible replacements had been examined previously. Suggestions for the "half a dozen" candidates now?  
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/12/chief-of-air-staff-on-auroras.html

Maybe UAVs are among them.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/10/uavs-for-maritime-surveillance.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/10/24/arctic-drones.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo

hfxnews goofs again....
EH10?   vs EH 101
The deadline for the delivery of the 1st unit has come and gone? vs delivery due for Nevember 2008

then... it would appear that the Gov't puts the delays squarely in the hands of Sikorsky.  No engineering changes suggested:



> The government is assessing whether it is prudent to start seeking financial penalties from Sikorsky for late delivery, MacKay said. His priority is to push Sikorsky to get "back on schedule," and perhaps add choppers to the one-a-month delivery schedule specified by the contract.
> 
> "We're going to continue working with Sikorsky. We're going to try to pin them down a little bit further on what the timelines are. There are penalties and clauses that will kick in."



I read another article the other day... something about the Finnish gov't and their dealings with an attack helicopter order coming out of France.  The penalties levied were converted into an additional helicopter.... Methinks that is a creative way of dealing with the supplier and creating a win/win situation.... even when the supplier is in the wrong.


----------



## karl28

geo 

  Iam just a Civy but man that would be sweet if you could get the company to provide the CF with an extra helicopter or two for the delays .


----------



## WPA

I do not work for any of the companies.

I am a guy who reads and watch shows on the topic.

I am just interest why things always get screwed up.

I 100% support the purchase of four the C17 (should arrange to purchase 2 to 4 more for the simple fact almost any mission the DND will be ask to do will across an ocean)

However, I am not sold on the Boeing P-8 MMA as the best option for Canada.

Bombardier CRJ900 or CRJ1000 might be a better fit for Canada even if it will not be able to carry the same weapons loads but enough to make it as deadly as the P-8. CRJ would be able carry the sensors need to do the same job. CRJ series of jets have sold very well around the world. This should help to reduce over all cost of operating cost of the planes, supply of parts...? just like the 737 

What is in the harm of taking the new mission equipment from the Aurora upgrade project that is sitting collect dust in some storage area and create CRJ900 test aircraft.[/quote]

Range is Important !

I look up the Boeing and Bombardier web site and looked up the range of the aircraft.

Boeing P-8

General Characteristics:
Propulsion: Two CFM567
engines providing 27,000
pounds thrust each
Length: 123.3 feet (37.59 meters)
Wing Span: 123.6 feet (37.64 meters)
Height: 42.1 feet (12.83 meters)
Maximum Takeoff Gross Weight: 187,700 pounds (85,139 kilograms)
Speed: 490 knots (564 mi/h, 789 km/h)
Range: 1,200+ nautical miles, with 4 hours on station
(1,381 miles, 2,222 kilometers)
Ceiling: 41,000 feet (12,496 meters)
Crew: 9


Bombardier CRJ900

Range
(220 ** per pax, MTOW, LRC with reserves)
Maximum range at LRC
CRJ900 NextGen (88 pax) 1,304 NM 1,500 SM 2,414 km
CRJ900 NextGen ER (88 pax) 1,557 NM 1,792 SM 2,883 km
CRJ900 NextGen LR (88 pax) 1,804 NM 2,076 SM 3,341 km
Speed Mach kts mph km/h
High cruise speed 0.83 476 548 882
Long-range cruise speed 0.78 447 515 827


The P-8 has a range of 1200NM with a 4 hour on station time
CRJ900LR has a range of 1200NM with a 604NM on station time. I am not going to work actual time, however the plane does have an on station time.

However, there is one problem of Canada in get the P-8 in time to be used. The target date for the full rate production for the P-8 to be signed off by the US GOV. is 2012.

Plus it is unlikely that Canada would be getting any of the early produced planes because the US fleet of P-3C are in serious bad shape with the Navy grounding 30 planes this year alone.

It would make more sense for Canada to convert the CRJ900 with AIMP equipment that has been report as paid for and wait to be installed. If the mission equipment is not on hand yet is not the point. A CRJ900 set for MMA duty should be done long before Canada can buy the P-8.

P-8 price tag is stated 150 million dollars with out delays or cost overruns on systems.
CRJ900 with a passenger cabin is roughly 36 million dollars (with out the cabin the price drops and use gross payload increases. The mission system contract has already been sign and developed or finishing development.
Canada should and the main word is Should be able to produce a CRJ900 some where under 100 dollars is good for Canada and atractive to other countries. Plus the price difference would allow DND to have a larger fleet and planes located at more bases (sovereignty reason)

Plus the CRJ 900 / 1000 could be a stepping stone to move to the C series that Bomdardier is trying to hit the GOV for more money or it will move it to the US. 

Instead of giving money the Gov should should state that it will do a Firm purchase 5 C series with option for testing purpose. In the mean time the Gov should purchase  some CRJ 900 for a testing as a interm replacement for the MPA roll until the P-8, C series or a better option is found. 

CRJ 900 / 1000 purchase as follows:

2 MPA with refueling (one with the converted with the sensor package firt for flight testing. second full convert jet with 1 or 2 bomb bay in the cargo area forward and aft of the wings (location not sure), hadpoint on the wings 2 each and finally a refueling probe.

2 AEW&C planes. Israel  uses a G550 with conformal AESA radar for a full 360 view and the first on has beem deliveried

2 Astor for the ground forces 

2 light weight refuel planes (wait wait crazy idea but hear me out) for emergency cases for Canada as the Airbus 310 AR are located in Ontario. plus could be bases in the Arctic and costal bases for refueling MPA and SAR Planes, Helicopters (chinnook purchase, UAVS . 

If you Look at the planes out there the option are limited. Boeing and Airbus planes asking price will not be affordable for most countries including Canada to have a  large enough fleet. 

The P-3 is dead plane and useful air frame are basically gone.

To me there looks to be a market for a light weight MPA , AEW&C and Canada and it's business could benefit from it.


----------



## aesop081

:

here we go again.......


----------



## aesop081

WPA said:
			
		

> I do not work for any of the companies.



Same here



> I am a guy who reads and watch shows on the topic.



I'm a guy who flies these missions and who is paid to know what he is talking about on this topic.



> I am just interest why things always get screwed up.



Because people who read too many book/articles by more peole who dont know what they are talking about get asked what they think.





> However, I am not sold on the Boeing P-8 MMA as the best option for Canada.



Fair enough.



> Bombardier CRJ900 or CRJ1000 might be a better fit for Canada even if it will not be able to carry the same weapons loads but enough to make it as deadly as the P-8. CRJ would be able carry the sensors need to do the same job. CRJ series of jets have sold very well around the world. This should help to reduce over all cost of operating cost of the planes, supply of parts...? just like the 737



The CRJ, with the same sensors as AIMP will not be able to carry any of the weapons planned for the P-8 or what is currently carried by the CP-140. You can have all the sensors you want but.......



> What is in the harm of taking the new mission equipment from the Aurora upgrade project that is sitting collect dust in some storage area and create CRJ900 test aircraft.



The AIMP equipment is designed for the CP-140 and now being installed into the CP-140.



> Range is Important !



The rest of your post indicates that you have no idea what "range"means.





> The P-8 has a range of 1200NM with a 4 hour on station time
> CRJ900LR has a range of 1200NM with a 604NM on station time. I am not going to work actual time, however the plane does have an on station time.



604 NM of on-station time is SFA.......You have no idea how large the Canadian AOR is do you ?



> However, there is one problem of Canada in get the P-8 in time to be used. The target date for the full rate production for the P-8 to be signed off by the US GOV. is 2012.
> 
> Plus it is unlikely that Canada would be getting any of the early produced planes because the US fleet of P-3C are in serious bad shape with the Navy grounding 30 planes this year alone.



That is "FULL RATE" production. The USN will begin recieving aircraft with "INITIAL LOW RATE" production. The US let us skip the line for the CC-177 after all so you cannot say that the same arrangement cannot be done.



> It would make more sense for Canada to convert the CRJ900 with AIMP equipment that has been report as paid for and wait to be installed. If the mission equipment is not on hand yet is not the point. A CRJ900 set for MMA duty should be done long before Canada can buy the P-8.



The AIMP equipment is being installed into the CP-140 to keep it going until a replacement can be selected. The AIMP equipment was designed some time ago, for the most part and will be obsolete in a few years after the Block 3 aircraft hits sqn service.



> P-8 price tag is stated 150 million dollars with out delays or cost overruns on systems.
> CRJ900 with a passenger cabin is roughly 36 million dollars (with out the cabin the price drops and use gross payload increases. The mission system contract has already been sign and developed or finishing development.
> Canada should and the main word is Should be able to produce a CRJ900 some where under 100 dollars is good for Canada and atractive to other countries. Plus the price difference would allow DND to have a larger fleet and planes located at more bases (sovereignty reason)



Re-designing a commercial airliner for military service costs a fortune.....just ask the US Navy !!



> Plus the CRJ 900 / 1000 could be a stepping stone to move to the C series that Bomdardier is trying to hit the GOV for more money or it will move it to the US.



You are advocating more political pork-barelling ?




> The P-3 is dead plane and useful air frame are basically gone.



No. AIMP + ASLEP will ensure that this is not the case.


----------



## WPA

I never said i knew everything. and i am not for pork-barelling. 

I do however feel at times DND like everyone else in the nation want 100% on there wish list. 

I am for a lot of purchases and then i feel that sometime there are solution in Canada. Plus people can not get everything they ask for. 

Are you saying the C17 was a screwed up? 

The CRJ range figure was before any extra fuel tanks are add.  MMA range is stated with the extra fuel tanks. 

However about the cost factor? the P-8 looks to be to costly for a Canada and DND. 
Plus the operation cost of the CRJ is lower then the 737. That is the reason the plane has been successful replace 737 planes in airline fleets around the world.
The you need to look into the fact that a combination of lower quality in range, weapons payload with increase quantity planes that DND can buy in lower purchased cost and operating costs?  

The Navy clearly see the P-8 as more then a MPA and that why they are calling a Multi Mission Aircraft. 

The funny thing is Canada just needs the MPA.  

How about the fact other countries are able to produce MPA and AEW&C on the same type of airframe. 

Plus the CRJ is base on the business aircraft and they have been proven to hold the radars an EO turrets, etc. 

AIMP contact has already been sign and therefore with only 10 P140 being upgrade there is extra equipment to try a test plane.

You stated

"That is "FULL RATE" production. The USN will begin recieving aircraft with "INITIAL LOW RATE" production. The US let us skip the line for the CC-177 after all so you cannot say that the same arrangement cannot be done."

At the rate the U.S. P-3 are being ground the U.S. will not let Canada skip the ahead in the line. Just look how hard it is to get the Chinnoks!


----------



## aesop081

WPA said:
			
		

> The funny thing is Canada just needs the MPA.




how do you figure that ?


----------



## Loachman

WPA said:
			
		

> The CRJ range figure was before any extra fuel tanks are add.  MMA range is stated with the extra fuel tanks.



And with the extra weight of the extra fuel, what would have to be given up in order to compensate?



			
				WPA said:
			
		

> However about the cost factor? the P-8 looks to be to costly for a Canada and DND.



Designing one's own, even on an existing airframe, isn't as cheap and simple as one might think either.

Plus, what does one get for the cost? Would a lesser aircraft be capable of doing everything that we may want? I think not.



			
				WPA said:
			
		

> The you need to look into the fact that a combination of lower quality in range, weapons payload with increase quantity planes that DND can buy in lower purchased cost and operating costs?



We establish project teams to analyse all aspects of forecast mission requirements and come up with viable options.

Increased quantity of aircraft is not necessarily a good thing. We have to crew them all and find sufficient techs to maintain and service them. We are extremely short of both, and will be for the foreseeable future.



			
				WPA said:
			
		

> Just look how hard it is to get the Chinnoks!



That's more to do with us. We have yet to even decide upon what we want on it yet. One less "n" and one more "o" by the way...


----------



## aesop081

WPA said:
			
		

> Plus the CRJ is base on the business aircraft and they have been proven to hold the radars an EO turrets, etc.



Radar and EO......thats it ?

How about MAD, ESM, Data management system, communications suite, Acoustic data processing system, Sufficient quantity of sonobouys and search stores, sufficient load of Mk46 ASW torps ( or newer) , tactical display systems, crew survival equipment, ASuW weapons........The CP-140 and the P-8 MMA are large aircraft for a reason.


----------



## geo

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The US let us skip the line for the CC-177 after all so you cannot say that the same arrangement cannot be done.



The two CC-177s we received were airframes that were in the production line for Australia, not the US.
The 1st two of our four aircraft order will be going to Australia.


----------



## hauger

I'll admit ignorance of the Maritime Patrol world, but man, I feel really bad for the poor small boat fishermen off the east coast somewhere that get visually identified by a P-8 zipping by at +400 kts, 200 feet (ish), with the two 27,000 hp turbines pushing air.  I'm sure that'll scare off some fish.

Here's a question for the low level stuff....one, jet turbines are horribly inefficient at low altitudes (sea level), which is why as I understand it the Aurora shuts down 2 of the four engines so they can run the remaining 2 at high speed necessary to generate the operating pressures in the gas generator.  How will turbo-fans react to hanging out at just above sea level?  Also, will the P-8 be able to fly slow enough to be useful for low-level visual id?


----------



## Haletown

and then again, Japan has a long, long history of designing and building excellent long rang maritime patrol aircraft.  They just have to change their export laws. 

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2008/02/jmsdf-spanks-usn.html

I am NOT an expert in the area, but it looks like a good design. 

What say the experts who do the job for a living ?


----------



## Loachman

From Page 4 of this thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/66394/post-621740/topicseen.html#msg621740

It didn't seem to generate much discussion.


----------



## peaches

mY GUESS HERE IS A COMPLETE CHANGE OF TACTICS FOR THE mARITIME PATROL FOLKS.  tHE p-8 BEING A


----------



## Eye In The Sky

peaches said:
			
		

> mY GUESS HERE IS A COMPLETE CHANGE OF TACTICS FOR THE mARITIME PATROL FOLKS.  tHE p-8 BEING A



broken and unreadable, say again, over  ;D


----------



## eurowing

hauger said:
			
		

> I'll admit ignorance of the Maritime Patrol world, but man, I feel really bad for the poor small boat fishermen off the east coast somewhere that get visually identified by a P-8 zipping by at +400 kts, 200 feet (ish), with the two 27,000 hp turbines pushing air.  I'm sure that'll scare off some fish.
> 
> Here's a question for the low level stuff....one, jet turbines are horribly inefficient at low altitudes (sea level), which is why as I understand it the Aurora shuts down 2 of the four engines so they can run the remaining 2 at high speed necessary to generate the operating pressures in the gas generator.  How will turbo-fans react to hanging out at just above sea level?  Also, will the P-8 be able to fly slow enough to be useful for low-level visual id?


Aurora engines run at 100% RPM in flight.  The Prop adjusts pitch to control thrust and the engine adjusts fuel to maintain 100%.  Cdn Aviator can chime in here, but I think the crew shuts down one engine in the interest of fuel economy and will relight it if they need to get "agressive".


----------



## aesop081

hauger said:
			
		

> which is why as I understand it the Aurora shuts down 2 of the four engines so they can run the remaining 2 at high speed necessary to generate the operating pressures in the gas generator.



We shut down 1 engine ( we can shut down 2 but rarely do so) to save fuel and extend our on-station time.


----------



## hauger

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> We shut down 1 engine ( we can shut down 2 but rarely do so) to save fuel and extend our on-station time.



Fair enough...one engine.  I would have thought that OEI through shutdown increases the risk of Vmca  due to failure of the other engine running on that side...leaving 2 working engines on one side pulling 2 engines Inop. on the other side.  Granted, it's probably safer than having 2 engines caged and then having a third pack it in while low level.  Can't imagine that being fun either.

So....back to the original question, can the P-8 operate efficiently and usefully at low level, or will visual id become the domain of UAV's directed from a P-8 operating on high?


----------



## aesop081

hauger said:
			
		

> Granted, it's probably safer than having 2 engines caged and then having a third pack it in while low level.  Can't imagine that being fun either.



Hence why we wont be down low on only 2 engines.

As far as the P-8, the US Navy seems to think that it can operate at low-level. As far as the tactics are for visual ID , i think thats a sunbject for another time and place. just remember that there are issues with UAVs operating due regard (IIRC) and that weather is a huge factor when trying to VID from up high......


----------



## WPA

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Radar and EO......thats it ?
> 
> How about MAD, ESM, Data management system, communications suite, Acoustic data processing system, Sufficient quantity of sonobouys and search stores, sufficient load of Mk46 ASW torps ( or newer) , tactical display systems, crew survival equipment, ASuW weapons........The CP-140 and the P-8 MMA are large aircraft for a reason.



Once again i am not an expert!

The CRJ 900/ 1000 are larger then the CP-140 and they are small the P-8.
I just saying that Aircraft is proven and building 2 test planes will give the Gov and DND the option of an interm plane and maybe a possible the better option to meet the needs for Canada other then the Boeing and Airbus option. 

I mention the radar and EO as an example conversions already done to lower the risk in the over all project of builsing test planes. 
Some other conversion are side scanning radars, different type of pollution scanners, cameras and different types of luanchers for flares and sensor equipment.

P-8 is a large aircraft to do what the us wants and that does not mean what Canada wants or needs. 

Lets just not limit our options. 

Plus the CRJ 900/1000 does have advantage over the 737 in purchase cost and operating cost.


----------



## aesop081

WPA said:
			
		

> P-8 is a large aircraft to do what the us wants and that does not mean what Canada wants or needs.



Then by all means, tell me what it is Canada does want / need ?

Your MMA/ MPA comparaison comment indicates to me that you dont seem to know/understand what we do now, how can you know what we need ?


----------



## George Wallace

WPA said:
			
		

> P-8 is a large aircraft to do what the us wants and that does not mean what Canada wants or needs.



Wonder what you must have thought about the Argus?


----------



## hauger

umm....just throwing this out there...tell me what you think....

Blimps.

Advantages:
Lots of range....high loitter times...efficient...and really, really high on the intimidation scale (imagine an airship decending, blotting out the sky like so much death and destruction, on a suspected smuggler or Sub position).

Disadvantage:
High loitter times....probably undesirable transit times.....potential lack of "swagger cool" cred. to be used when visiting another wing's Mess.


----------



## WPA

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Then by all means, tell me what it is Canada does want / need ?
> 
> Your MMA/ MPA comparaison comment indicates to me that you dont seem to know/understand what we do now, how can you know what we need ?



I never said i know what Canada needs or wants. But say the P-8 is the only option is wrong too.


----------



## Loachman

WPA said:
			
		

> Once again i am not an expert!



And CDN Aviator _*is*_.

So are those involved in the/any Aurora replacement project.


----------



## Loachman

hauger said:
			
		

> Disadvantage:
> High loitter times....probably undesirable transit times.....potential lack of "swagger cool" cred. to be used when visiting another wing's Mess.



...grunts wanting to rappel/jump from it all of the time...


----------



## benny88

hauger said:
			
		

> umm....just throwing this out there...tell me what you think....
> 
> Blimps.
> 
> Advantages:
> Lots of range....high loitter times...efficient...and really, really high on the intimidation scale (imagine an airship decending, blotting out the sky like so much death and destruction, on a suspected smuggler or Sub position) And then having the smuggler, oh, I dunno, escape easily. ;D


----------



## WPA

Loachman said:
			
		

> And CDN Aviator _*is*_.
> 
> So are those involved in the/any Aurora replacement project.



Look i am new to the site. I am nit here offend people. 

But i do think that a more balance approach to the purchase of equipment needs to be done.

Look how many times procurement project end up a mess because of politics and inflexibility and failure of getting the need information out to Canadians of all people involved in the system. 

The people in Canada are already tight fist-ed in defense spending the past has shown this. 

When you see other nation using Bombardier aircraft and from other complies in the same class  for military jobs confuse the people. 

I just want to know why the P-8 is the only one because someone said so. I also the same to the CRJ plane to. 

I think a test plane would be a good ideas. 

If it work fine.

If it does not work fine.

In the end we two plane that can be used to testing different systems and some answers with hard proof for the general public see and understand options out there.

I hope this help what i am trying to understand on the whole issue?


----------



## aesop081

WPA said:
			
		

> When you see other nation using Bombardier aircraft and from other complies in the same class  for military jobs confuse the people.



What countries ?

What were their requirements ? What missions did they assign to the aircraft ? What size is their AOR ? What type of naval forces are they supporting ? Are they tasked to support ground forces ? What type of weather / environment are they operating in ? 

Are those requirements the same as ours ? It goes well beyond "well some one else is using it" and well beyond simple performance figures.


----------



## Good2Golf

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Hence why we wont be down low on only 2 engines.
> 
> As far as the P-8, the US Navy seems to think that it can operate at low-level. As far as the tactics are for visual ID , i think thats a sunbject for another time and place. just remember that there are issues with UAVs operating due regard (IIRC) and that weather is a huge factor when trying to VID from up high......




Pfffftt...amateurs!  ;D

Real men fly low over the water with only one engine...a really, really small, single engine.


----------



## aesop081

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Pfffftt...amateurs!  ;D
> 
> Real men fly low over the water with only one engine...a really, really small, single engine.



Your "real" men dont weigh 140 000 Lbs........lets see them do that at 300 Kts / 200 feet with their one engine


----------



## Good2Golf

[OT warning]

200'????  Holy crap!  Nosebleed country!  

150/50 is much spicier...especially on NVG!

[/OT]


----------



## aesop081

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> [OT warning]
> 
> 200'????  Holy crap!  Nosebleed country!
> 
> 150/50 is much spicier...especially on NVG!
> 
> [/OT]




Pffffffttt.......

I would like to see you do that in a hurricane  when the vis is 0/0


----------



## Loachman

WPA said:
			
		

> Look i am new to the site.



As were we all, once.



			
				WPA said:
			
		

> I am nit here offend people.



And you haven't yet. You have puzzled some of us, though.



			
				WPA said:
			
		

> But i do think that a more balance approach to the purchase of equipment needs to be done.



It generally is. Just because you don't see the process doesn't mean that it isn't taking place.



			
				WPA said:
			
		

> Look how many times procurement project end up a mess because of politics and inflexibility and failure of getting the need information out to Canadians of all people involved in the system.



A _*recent*_ example would be...?

Politics has interfered too much in the past, but if the government of the day wished to interfere then no military selection system in the world would make any difference.



			
				WPA said:
			
		

> The people in Canada are already tight fist-ed in defense spending the past has shown this.



Not so much. The current government has spent billions in a very short period with extremely little reaction, other than from the usual sources which have been largely ignored. If the government wishes to spend money on major kit and can justify it, then the public will - as has been shown - accept it.



			
				WPA said:
			
		

> When you see other nation using Bombardier aircraft and from other complies in the same class  for military jobs



This has already been dealt with.



			
				WPA said:
			
		

> confuse the people.



You seem to be the only person confused, and the only one trying to push something from a position of admitted ignorance. This does not, to me, make sense.



			
				WPA said:
			
		

> I just want to know why the P-8 is the only one because someone said so.



There are not a lot of maritime patrol aircraft on the market.

We currently use an essentially American aircraft in this role today, and are used to and have accepted the operational philosophy behind that design, which meets our needs reasonably well. Given that the P8 has been designed to meet the same operational philosophy, it is logical to assume that it, too, would meet our needs. I would assume - and CDN Aviator can either confirm or deny - that we operate in a similar fashion to the US crews of P3s, and the environment on either coast of the northern US is much the same as ours to some distance further north. Unless we have a need or needs radically different from the P8, it stands to reason that, of all of its competitors available, it is the best solution.

Converting another airframe, even if it was large enough and had the lift capacity to carry everything and everybody necessary to do the job that we require it to do, bears some risk and potentially significant cost. One cannot just bolt stuff on or in willy-nilly and expect it to work and be safe. We would quite likely run up the cost to match or exceed that of the P8 in the process.

The "somebodies" who are "saying so" are the people more than familiar with the environment in which whatever aircraft is selected must operate, the missions that it must perform, and aircraft and systems design. This is their job.



			
				WPA said:
			
		

> I think a test plane would be a good ideas.
> 
> If it work fine.
> 
> If it does not work fine.
> 
> In the end we two plane that can be used to testing different systems and some answers with hard proof for the general public see and understand options out there.



It is nowhere as simple as you think.

If it doesn't work, we're out  multiple millions of dollars with nothing to show for it.

Even if it does work, it will cost a horrendous amount for a very small number of aircraft (small production runs always cost more per unit), and will take years to design, build, and test - all of which have already been done on P8.



			
				WPA said:
			
		

> I hope this help what i am trying to understand on the whole issue?



I hope that some of what we are saying sinks in.

Essentially, you have been saying, "I admit that I do not know what I am talking about, but I am going to argue anyway, despite what people who operate aircraft in this role and others tell me".


----------



## Loachman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> 150/50 is much spicier...especially on NVG!



Holy crap!  Nosebleed country!

Skids clear of ground, and half a rotor diameter from cows.


----------



## Loachman

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Pffffffttt.......
> 
> I would like to see you do that in a hurricane  when the vis is 0/0



Pffffffttt.......

I would like to see you fly under a bridge at your "low-level" - in any vis.


----------



## aesop081

Loachman said:
			
		

> I would assume - and CDN Aviator can either confirm or deny - that we operate in a similar fashion to the US crews of P3s,



Very much so. In fact it is so similar that we slide into their operations / exercises without changing anything.


----------



## aesop081

Loachman said:
			
		

> Pffffffttt.......
> 
> I would like to see you fly under a bridge at your "low-level" - in any vis.



I dont see too many bridges 1500 miles out to sea, sorry


----------



## Journeyman

Shhhhhh....dammit   

We can still employ the boat-hunter's airframe......if we convince them there are 5-star hotels in Arghandab


----------



## aesop081

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Shhhhhh....dammit
> 
> We can still employ the boat-hunter's airframe......if we convince them there are 5-star hotels in Arghandab



We are all convinced we can work over there. We have proven many time on MAPLE GUARDIAN and MOJAVE VIPER that it works. The problem is not with the operators.


----------



## George Wallace

Loachman said:
			
		

> Holy crap!  Nosebleed country!
> 
> Skids clear of ground, and half a rotor diameter from cows.



You took me for a ride once in Germany.......didn't you?    ;D


----------



## Loachman

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You took me for a ride once in Germany.......didn't you?    ;D



If it was between 1986 and 1989, quite possibly.

But before milnet staff-type guy CDN Aviator admonishes us about tracks 'n' stuff...


----------



## aesop081

Loachman said:
			
		

> Converting another airframe, even if it was large enough and had the lift capacity to carry everything and everybody necessary to do the job that we require it to do, bears some risk and potentially significant cost. One cannot just bolt stuff on or in willy-nilly and expect it to work and be safe. We would quite likely run up the cost to match or exceed that of the P8 in the process.



To add to this :

You end up with a small number of unique airplanes. Unique airplanes cost more because the entire cost of the production / R&D is spread over a limited number of airframes. You also end up with an aircraft that no one else uses and thus ends up being terribly expensive and complicated to upgrade ( wow....thats the problem with the CP-140s design and with AIMP, go figure). You end up with an aircraft that has widely differing capabilities than those of our major defense partner which complicates joint operations and training.


----------



## Good2Golf

Loachman said:
			
		

> Holy crap!  Nosebleed country!
> 
> Skids clear of ground, and half a rotor diameter from cows.



[slightly more OT sutff]

Loachman, that was in regards to over the Persian Gulf at night...I figured I wouldn't publish an irresponsibly low figure...


----------



## Loachman

Amphibious Hot-Weather Cows.


----------



## bartbandyrfc

hauger said:
			
		

> Fair enough...one engine.  I would have thought that OEI through shutdown increases the risk of Vmca  due to failure of the other engine running on that side...leaving 2 working engines on one side pulling 2 engines Inop. on the other side.  Granted, it's probably safer than having 2 engines caged and then having a third pack it in while low level.  Can't imagine that being fun either.
> 
> So....back to the original question, can the P-8 operate efficiently and usefully at low level, or will visual id become the domain of UAV's directed from a P-8 operating on high?



I have flown the sleek greyhound of death for some 4000 hours, and have another 2 grand on heavy jets. What the heck is OEI?  Is that "One Engine Inoperative" . This is a new one for me.  

Your comments about VMCA show you have a fair amount of knowledge.  Cool, it's nice to read a poster with this kind of educated understanding of our world.  Your statement shows good understanding, but we would be really stupid to operate the airplane with engines shutdown in the way you have stated.  When we shut down one or two engines for fuel savings, there is a damn good reason to do so. Perhaps it is to try and save people in the water or to maintain contact on a bad boy sub.  Or if given the chance, perhaps it will be to keep our really way-cool new camera focused on some Taliban baddies in aid of our tan CADPAT friends.  Whatever the reason, if we do so it is a matter of risk assessment, weather, fuel that can be saved, options if we have an engine failure, terrain, and many other issues.  Shutting down one is a fairly regular thing.  On the other hand, in my many years of flying the CP-140 I have been "on two" about five times.  I think three times were for SAR, and twice were for other operational reaons.  As Cdn Aviator says it's a rare circumstance.

Needless to say, operating with one shut down is simple, easy, and nearly risk free.  That said, we assess risk and make a call as to whether the decision is the right one or not.  When we operate with two engines loitered we fly at an altitiude and airspeed that will allow us the time and space to spark up a loitered engine.  We have a specified minimum altitude that we can operate at, and if heavy we will operate even higher than this regulated level.  We look at the charted rate of descent on one engine, and make a call about our minimum altitide for operations.  Our speed is sufficiently high that we will not reach anywhere near VMCA, provided we don't paint ourselves into a corner by violating our orders while also being stupid.  Also, an engine failing doesn't "pull" unless it also fails to feather or if you are stupid and get really slow.  If you have this double failure (i.e. engine failure with a failure to feather the propellor) you are having a bad day.  This failure to feather scenario is extremely unlikey, but sometimes the "gamble" is worth it some days.

Lastly, who cares about VMCA unless you are trying to avoid an obstacle.  Frankly, if I am above safety height I do not care one iota about my ability to maintain a compass heading.  As long as I get theat other engine going, I am happy.  Not many "controlling obstacles" when flying over the water, are there?

With regard to the P-8 and its suitability for overwater ops, there is a lot to be said about it's unsuitability as compared to the P-3.  There is no better airframe IMHO for low level over water ops than a P-3. It's an airborne tractor; strong, easy to operate, and forgiving.  However, we ain't gonna get a new P-3 since they don't build them anymore. So we are likely be stuck with what the USN will buy, which is likely the best decsion we could make. As a note for WPA, the bombardier product is not a good choice for Canada.  The RAF bought them for their ASTOR programme, and despite being overbudget, the airplane has failed to meet any of their requirements.  IMHO, it would be crap. Anyhow...

That's not to say that the P-8 will be unworkable in the long range patrol role. Firstly, the airplane will not need to be operated the same way.  Many of the sensor ops will be more efficiently done at high altitude, because the sensors will be lightyears ahead of what we know have.  In the ASW role, the only time we will need to go low is to kill something.  The localization to attack criteria will be done entirely at high level.  The anti-surface role will not require any low level work, unless we need to show a "presence". If we are going to shoot something, we will be able to identify a ship by hull number from scores of miles away, and kill him just as far away.  

For SAR, we will need to go low.  The airplane will not be as good in this role as the Aurora.  But hopefully we will do this only rarely, becuase the government will have bought the AF a really good SAR platform for that purpose.  If this doesn't happen, well we will just have to make do, scootin' along at about 220 knots (not 400 as you suggest) with those big hoovers sucking up gas by the tonne.

Bart


----------



## aesop081

Bart, i think you have read my mind on most counts. I'm glad someone from the "forward of the shitter" crowd is here to add to the thread. My 1500 hours on the SGOD dont compare to your experience of course.

I'm not convinced however that the new sensors will permit us to work from high in any great amount. The weather conditions i have faced so far in my flying career have more often then not forced us down low even though we have this fancy new camera  ;D

SAR/ISAR will certainly help, as will a modern ESM system but if we are to continue some of the missions we do now, a VID will still be necessary. After all, no one out there put on their AIS that they are fishing illegaly or dumping oil !!

In any event, i look forward to what AIMP block 2 and Block 3 will bring us. I was realy impressed with block 2 when i toured 140106 a few weeks ago. When the SGOD disapears from Canadian skies, i will miss it very much. My first time on one was when i was 7 years old and consider it a dream fullfilled to have been a crewmember on the CP-140. I wish that the US Navy had gone ahead with the P-7 project  :-[


----------



## hauger

Yikes....Bart.....having a bad day at the office?  I was just asking in a casual manner, I am not a member of the procurement board nor do I have a vested interest one way or the other....just bored, saw the thread, read a bit, and asked a question.

In no way, shape, or form did I say anything question the safety or wisdom of running with one engine caged.  Hell,if that's the way it's done, then so be it....no skin off my back.  I think though if you re-read my comments, you'll see I wasn't beaking off that it shouldn't be done, I was just mentioning I'd heard it is done.  I did not ever comment on how it's done though, nor suggest a way to do it.  I'm not sure why you think " but we would be really stupid to operate the airplane with engines shutdown in the way you have stated" when I didn't state one way or the other on how to operate.  Any Vmca comments was just me working through the asymmetric thrust and worst case scenarios in a think out loud kind of way.  That's all.

Seriously though....my comments were at best casual chilled out shoot-the-s*** type stuff on what is a public internet message board viewable by all walks of people.

Now, to clear up....I said nothing about SAR.  I did however suggest blimps (but not in a serious way).  Hell, if the powers that be think the job can be done well by the P-8, then fill-yer-boots.  I was just curious how it would run at 200 feet.  

Maybe I'm reading it wrong and you're just trying to inform me a bit, I'm just surprised a 5 sentence off the cuff question generated a 7 paragraph response.


----------



## Loachman

It just seemed straight-up educational to me, and quite thorough.


----------



## hauger

Loachman said:
			
		

> It just seemed straight-up educational to me, and quite thorough.



See....this is why the internet sucks.  There's no sense of tone or tempo to the responses, and so people take meanings wrong....all that "non-verbal" stuff is missing.


----------



## Good2Golf

I took it the same way Loachman did.  Although I am trying to figure out why you need a Vmca greater than 0 kts...  ;D

G2G


----------



## observor 69

Bart thanks for the excellent post. Those in the know in the Maritime aviation community will recognize that you speak as "one who knows."


----------



## Loachman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Although I am trying to figure out why you need a Vmca greater than 0 kts...  ;D



I don't even remember hearing that term before now. It can't be terribly important.


----------



## aesop081

Vmca = Minimum control speed in air

For those who care / didnt know


----------



## Loachman

I was right, then.


----------



## bartbandyrfc

hauger said:
			
		

> Yikes....Bart.....having a bad day at the office?  I was just asking in a casual manner, I am not a member of the procurement board nor do I have a vested interest one way or the other....just bored, saw the thread, read a bit, and asked a question.
> 
> Maybe I'm reading it wrong and you're just trying to inform me a bit, I'm just surprised a 5 sentence off the cuff question generated a 7 paragraph response.



Hauger,

Sorry, but the response was not meant to be nasty.  It's just the way I talk at the bar, and I had a glass of wine as I was typing.  No offence intended, just some witty banter to liven up the board.  A little education was also in mind, since it seemed from your post that we risk our crews and our airframe willy-nilly, without consideration of risks or redundancies. I have to be frank, this is fairly common sentiment and I get tired of it.  Again, apologies if I offended you; not my intent at all.

For Cdn Aviator, I think the ability to schwack a baddy surface vessel does not necessarily need a vis ID.  As you know, we can do this based on various ident criteria, which I can't get into in any more depth about on this board.  I would say that a Vis ID may be a bad idea in some circumstances.  The new mission kit will just make this identification job a lot easier.  Other than that, I agree that the P-7 was a missed opportunity.

You fling wing dudes can get back in your box!  ;D


----------



## hauger

No sweat Bart....the more I thought about it the more I thought I was taking things a little wrong.  One thing you can be certain of...I know fully that shutting down an engine is never a willy-nilly what-the-hell thing.  My original point with it was that shutting it down allowed you to run up N1 on the remaining engines to increase efficiency while maintaining a slower speed.  This may be highly incorrect, but these circumstances and reasoning were taught to us in Moose Jaw when we were first learning about turbines....which is how I came to make my original post.

Loachman....Vmca isn't a big deal if you're going fast enough...but you do have to be aware of it in a bunch of circumstances.  An engine failure after take off can be a big Vmca issue, as can trying to land somewhere with a caged engine, getting slow on airspeed, then deciding to go around but applying full torque to the three working engines instead of the two symmetric ones can cause a Vmca issue too.  A loss of directional control ain't a good thing, but how much of a deal it is depends on how bad the loss is, and how much altitude you have to deal with it.....if a failure occurs after take off out of Castlegar at 100ft with really big rock walls everywhere and airspeed drops below Vmca, you have a more an issue to deal with than if the same failure occurs in the prairies at 1,000 feet (just reduce the throttle on the good engine a bit).


----------



## aesop081

Not much of an issue with 3 remaining engines that crank out 4600 Shp each i suspect


----------



## hauger

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Not much of an issue with 3 remaining engines that crank out 4600 Shp each i suspect



Dunno...there may have been an Aurora incident once on landing one the east coast where three engines (each cranking 4600 shp) happily tooled along while there was a loss of directional control on a go-around.  Not saying there was, just that there may have been.


----------



## muskrat89

hauger - I don't know squat about planes except that when everything is right, they fly in the air. I just can't help get the feeling that you learned/read enough somewhere to drop tech-speak into the conversation, without really knowing what you are talking about. Maybe my perception is wrong but you seem to have "some knowledge" but generally are posting out of your lane here. Maybe I'm mistaken....


----------



## Loachman

hauger said:
			
		

> Loachman....Vmca isn't a big deal if you're going fast enough...



I can be flying at zero knots and be going fast enough.

I can be flying at negative knots and be going fast enough.

I can be flying sideways and be going fast enough.



			
				hauger said:
			
		

> but you do have to be aware of it in a bunch of circumstances.



No I don't.

I've got over 4000 hours in a bunch of circumstances without being aware of it.


----------



## Loachman

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Maybe my perception is wrong but you seem to have "some knowledge" but generally are posting out of your lane here. Maybe I'm mistaken....



I have "some knowledge" but generally are posting out of my lane here, too.

He's okay from my point of view.


----------



## observor 69

hauger said:
			
		

> Dunno...there may have been an Aurora incident once on landing one the east coast where three engines (each cranking 4600 shp) happily tooled along while there was a loss of directional control on a go-around.  Not saying there was, just that there may have been.



This what you are thinking of:

Vivid memories remain of fiery Argus crash of 1977 

http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=20187&sc=98


----------



## hauger

ARRGGG!

My original question was regarding the efficiency of turbo-fans at low level.  That was it.

I don't understand how that takes me out of my lane.  Further, I'm a bit confused how someone who admits no knowledge of aircraft can then call someone out for being "out of their lane".  The Vmca stuff was a complete side bar bit regarding the engines being shut down and in NO WAY has anything to do with this discussion....I'm sorry I brought it up at all.  My last post was just to show that yes, it is important, although it isn't a hell-broke-loose red page by any means.

I can assure you though, that I don't have the experience levels Bart has by any means, nor do I know anything about the operation of Aurora's at all, I am not talking out of my lane or dropping tech-speak in an effort to sound like I know something I don't.

I just wish the other posters here would move on and stop being so argumentative over such little points.


----------



## muskrat89

> Maybe my perception is wrong


  





> Maybe I'm mistaken....



Not being argumentative at all. I even posted two caveats...  Nor was I "calling you out". I wasn't posting as Staff, and beieve it or not - I have been wrong before. Methinks you need to relax. I don't need to know anything about planes to think that you are "meshing differently" in the thread, as opposed to the patterns I'm used to seeing. That's all.


----------



## hauger

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> This what you are thinking of:
> 
> Vivid memories remain of fiery Argus crash of 1977
> 
> http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=20187&sc=98



Nope, that's not it.  Helluva read though.  I doubt the incident I'm thinking of made the papers (no actual accident), but may have made a Flight Comment....I just don't feel like digging through them to find it.


----------



## hauger

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Not being argumentative at all. I even posted two caveats...  Nor was I "calling you out". I wasn't posting as Staff, and beieve it or not - I have been wrong before. Methinks you need to relax. I don't need to know anything about planes to think that you are "meshing differently" in the thread, as opposed to the patterns I'm used to seeing. That's all.



Tough but fair.  Me thinks me will chill out a bit now.

Loachman...I don't understand this zero kts thing.

Wait a minute.......you're helo's.....ahh.   ;D

Anyways....I'm done.  I'll leave the thread to the adults now.


----------



## aesop081

hauger said:
			
		

> Dunno...there may have been an Aurora incident once on landing one the east coast where three engines (each cranking 4600 shp) happily tooled along while there was a loss of directional control on a go-around.  Not saying there was, just that there may have been.



I'm aware of that incident. As a matter of fact i was watching the animation replay of it a few days ago.


----------



## Loachman

hauger said:
			
		

> Loachman...I don't understand this zero kts thing.
> 
> Wait a minute.......you're helo's.....ahh.   ;D



Just having some cheap fun at your expense.

I was nice to somebody earlier, and must keep everything in balance.



			
				hauger said:
			
		

> Tough but fair.  Me thinks me will chill out a bit now.
> 
> Anyways....I'm done.  I'll leave the thread to the adults now.



Don't worry about it. I thought that you were doing alright.


----------



## Loachman

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I'm aware of that incident. As a matter of fact i was watching the animation replay of it a few days ago.



I seem to recall that from an Annual DFS Brief sometime in the last decade.


----------



## bartbandyrfc

hauger said:
			
		

> ARRGGG!
> 
> My original question was regarding the efficiency of turbo-fans at low level.  That was it.
> 
> I don't understand how that takes me out of my lane.  Further, I'm a bit confused how someone who admits no knowledge of aircraft can then call someone out for being "out of their lane".  The Vmca stuff was a complete side bar bit regarding the engines being shut down and in NO WAY has anything to do with this discussion....I'm sorry I brought it up at all.  My last post was just to show that yes, it is important, although it isn't a hell-broke-loose red page by any means.
> 
> I can assure you though, that I don't have the experience levels Bart has by any means, nor do I know anything about the operation of Aurora's at all, I am not talking out of my lane or dropping tech-speak in an effort to sound like I know something I don't.
> 
> I just wish the other posters here would move on and stop being so argumentative over such little points.



Don't sweat it dude.  You comments and questions are fair ball and good discussion.  All that matters is that most of us think your comments are fine.  I am more than willing to chat about this stuff with you, either by PM or in the thread.  It's good professional development.  Just don't take stuff personally.

You are correct, there was a bad CP-140 incident with VMCA involved.  It happened in St John's NL around 1999.  I know both the pilots and I know that some mistakes were made.  Beyond that, because these folks are friends of mine, I would prefer you look for open source information in the flight safety system to get the results.  Suffice to say, the crew was dstracted by several snags.  They got too slow, and executed a go around at below the minimum speed.  If not for the final intervention of the AC who corrected things in time, we would likely have had a hull loss and some dead folks because of that incident.  Thank the good Lord for helping the AC to intervene, it was that close.


It is an excellent CRM and aircraft handling lesson.  Well worth discussing in the pilot ready room.  Just ask your WFSO for the FSR and SR and the video.

Cheers, and keep smiling.

Bart


----------



## muskrat89

hauger - As previously stated, I have been wrong on occasion. Based on the comments here by the SMEs, my perception was indeed off, apparently. Please accept my apologies for insinuating that you may have been posting out of your league, on this thread.

I knew there was a reason I rarely leave the Combat Arms forums...   ^-^


----------



## Loachman

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> hauger - As previously stated, I have been wrong on occasion. Based on the comments here by the SMEs, my perception was indeed off, apparently. Please accept my apologies for insinuating that you may have been posting out of your league, on this thread.
> 
> I knew there was a reason I rarely leave the Combat Arms forums...   ^-^



But we had a good discussion and everybody learned something from it and I got an opportunity to baffle the young lad with my helicopterness so butt in anytime.


----------



## aesop081

So.......about that P-8.......


----------



## Loachman

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So.......about that P-8.......



S**t disturber.


----------



## aesop081

Loachman said:
			
		

> S**t disturber.



Pot, kettel.......


----------



## Loachman

What colour are we again?


----------



## FoverF

Okay, I'll bite...
I'm not advocating anything here, just throwing a few more irons on the fire for the sake of discussion;

Let's say we go ahead, and maybe get some new FWSAR airframes (I know, I know, I'm not holding my breath either). One may notice that both the major contenders offer dedicated MP variants, with a couple dozen CN-235s already operational in this role with customers all over the world (ie, the USCG as the HC-144). No-one has fielded the C-27J in the MP role yet, but Alenia/LM have offered it in competitions, and can afford to eat some development costs for the sake of having a happy launch customer.

Obviously these aren't going to be hunting Russian subs, so they are hardly a drop-in replacement for the Aurora or P-8. But so far as I know, killing subs is far from the be-all and end-all of the requirement. A lot of the job seems to involve flying around and looking at/for stuff. Some of it even looks down-right similar to the SAR jobs we'd be buying them for. 

So ASSUMING (necessary condition) that we buy some FWSAR birds, how about buying a few extras in an MP configuration, to augment a P-8 buy? 

- it can spend lots of hours in the air for a lot cheaper than a P-8, for those times when you don't plan on killing anyone
- uses an existing airframe type (this is the biggest key, without this the idea doesn't fly in any way at all)
- Their radius is at least in the same ball-park as the P-8 (1,500 NM give or take, more take than give), 
- FLIR, decent radar, CCD camera, whatever electronic goodies we can afford, would give it a good sensor fit for surveillance
- saves ballpark of $100-150 million in purchase price/airframe vs a P-8 (P-8s ain't gonna be cheap)
- may be more suitable than a P-8 for ground-surveillance missions in terms of op cost, and low- (med?) level endurance
- looking to the future, a guy in the back of a FWSAR could control armed UCAVs to do the shooting
- is a LOT more flexible than contracted King-Airs and stuff (Rear door, serious cargo capacity, more range, more avionics, is organic to CF, etc)


The probly $200+ million P-8 can still tear around chasing submarines, burning oceans of dinosaur juice (CFM56 has a SFC of 0.38 x 27,300lb x 2 = $$$), tossing missiles and sonobouys and running UAVs and stuff, which are all jobs that need to be done. But when you're just dropping in on some dodgy Spanish fishing boat dumping bilge water, or for SAR taskings, or other non-combat roles, it seems to me that a FWSAR airframe could do a comparable job for a lot cheaper. And if things go sour, the speed a P-8 brings to the table could still provide a dedicated shooter on the scene in a timely fashion.

obvious down-sides to the idea include:

- Not made in Quebec 
- Not armed (maybe could accomodate some sono-bouys if needed, but would that be really useful?)
- Not many guys in the back (could add a bunch of workstations, but would be pricey)
- I'm sure people will jump in with others

I have no beef with the P-8, but I think it'll be too obscenely expensive to be palletable to Canadian taxpayers, and we're liable to wind up with a very small fleet if we get it at all. Some MP-configured FWSAR airframes might allow us to make do with a relatively small P-8 buy. 

This is just a sketchy idea I've been chewing on for a while, and thought I'd throw it on the fire.

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? Insults? 

The floor is open...


----------



## Loachman

I don't think that the P-8 buy could be any smaller than its likely to  be and be sustainable anyway (presuming that it happens, of course).

Augmentation is likely to be provided by UAVs.

There are comments earlier in this thread regarding limitations of lesser aircraft.


----------



## Spencer100

From Strategy Page about the P-8 and a new offshout EP-3.  They seem to have a different take on it.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/articles/20080227.aspx

Super Snooper
February 27, 2008: Sensor and radar technology is changing so quickly that the U.S. Air Force and Navy are having a hard time designing a replacement for their current electronic warfare (EW) aircraft. The Navy wants to replace the EW version of its P-3 reconnaissance aircraft (EP-3), while the air force has several elderly aircraft  using a wide array of sensors and radars. The navy has decided that sensors have become small enough, and cheap enough, that they can load up a Boeing 737 with radar, sensors, computers, mini-UAVs and the people needed to run it all, and perform functions formerly taken care of by several different aircraft. This new Super Snooper will be the EP-8. It will mount an AESA radar for scanning the sea (or land) below in great detail. Also mounted on (actually, built in) the aircraft skin are dozens of antennas, for detecting any kind of nearby electronic emissions. The EP-8 would be used for a wider array of missions than its predecessor, the EP-3. In addition to the traditional trolling off the coast of, say, China, North Korea or Iran, to detect how the locals use their electronic devices (radars, communications, whatever), the EP-8 can also fly over combat zones seeking out cell phone, walkie-talkie or other radio use, and locating the people involved. The EP-8 carries missiles, as well as small UAVs that can be used to test enemy air defenses (which can result in a missile to take out the hostile radar). 
  

The 737 is also being used as the P-3 replacement (the P-8As), which enters service in about three years. Although the Boeing 737 based P-8A is a two engine jet, compared to the four engine turboprop P-3, it is a more capable plane. The P8A has 23 percent more floor space than the P-3, and is larger (118 foot wingspan, versus 100 foot) and heavier (83 tons versus 61). Most other characteristics are the same. Both can stay in the air about ten hours per sortie. Speed is different. Cruise speed for the 737 is 910 kilometers an hour, versus 590 for the P-3. This makes it possible for the P-8A to get to a patrol area faster, which is a major advantage when chasing down subs spotted by sonar arrays or satellites. 

  

However, the P-3 can carry more weapons (9 tons, versus 5.6.) This is less of a factor as the weapons (torpedoes, missiles, mines, sonobouys) are, pound for pound, more effective today and that trend continues. Both carry the same size crew, of 10-11 pilots and equipment operators. Both aircraft carry search radar and various other sensors. 

  

The 737 has, like the P-3. been equipped with bomb hard points on the wings for torpedoes or missiles. The B-737 is a more modern design, and has been used successfully since the 1960s by commercial aviation. Navy aviators are confident that it will be as reliable as the P-3 (which was based on the Electra civilian airliner that first flew in 1954, although only 170 were built, plus 600 P-3s. About 40 Electras are still in service). The Boeing 737 first flew in 1965, and over 5,000 have been built. The P-8A will be the first 737 designed with a bomb bay and four wing racks for weapons. 

  

The EP-8 will be fitted for aerial refueling, something the air force is not enthusiastic about. But the navy is pitching the EP-8 as a "strategic asset" (looking for critical information to fill out the "big picture" for the most senior leaders). So the air force will have to play along. The navy is adopting some air force practices, like putting many of the EP-8 crew (the sensor operators) on the ground, back in the U.S., and linked to the EP-8 via satellite. The air force has had great success doing this with their dozens of Predator UAVs, which are flown by operators stationed in the American Midwest. 

  

The P-8 looks like it will be the last maritime reconnaissance aircraft with people aboard. In fact, there are a growing number of UAV proponents in the navy and air force who want the next generation of aircraft to be unmanned. But the UAV technology (particularly the reliability) is not quite there yet.


----------



## FoverF

Well, I don't know if it's really a _new_ offshoot, since IIRC the MMA program was originally supposed to include the ASW, ASuW, and ISR roles in one variant from the get go. I really like the direct reference to mini-UAVs. I wonder how mini they're talking about? Cruise missile? Firebee sized? (_Sonobouy_-sized?)

I think the P-8 is the best Aurora replacement we can get (they had me sold at '73-'...), but it's not like there are a whole of  other choices out there (Nimrod 2000s? Il-38s? blimps?). The per-unit pricetag is just going to make it a difficult sell here. 

If you look in the opposite direction from FWSAR, I think there was also supposed to be an AEW&C -style variant of the P-8 for the USN at one point in time. This doesn't seem to have materialized yet, but a P-8 purchase might make it more economically feasible for Canada to purchase/operate something like a Wedgetail, or Turkey's new 737 variant. This should allow the CF to get the job done with fewer airframes (and have new capabilties too), but again, unit purchase cost is brutal. 

While we're talking the about timeframe of an Aurora replacement, we also talking about the timeframe for replacing a lot of other airframes too. When the CF-18 gets replaced, it obviously won't be one-for-one, but a 737 with some big ugly stand-off missiles could be better to have than a fast jet in some scenarios anyways. Especially if that scenario is happening a long ways away (places like north of 60). 

What else can you squeeze out of this airframe? The more stuff it can do, the easier it is to justify buying it. And we _are_ liable to be stuck with them for most of my lifetime. 

And what is a feasible number of P-8s? 10?


----------



## observor 69

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> From Strategy Page about the P-8 and a new offshout EP-3.  They seem to have a different take on it.
> 
> http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/articles/20080227.aspx



Thanks for the link. Great article.

Things are "a-changing". Apparently so fast the decision makers are having trouble coming up with the right combination


----------



## bartbandyrfc

FoverF said:
			
		

> Well, I don't know if it's really a _new_ offshoot, since IIRC the MMA program was originally supposed to include the ASW, ASuW, and ISR roles in one variant from the get go. I really like the direct reference to mini-UAVs. I wonder how mini they're talking about? Cruise missile? Firebee sized? (_Sonobouy_-sized?)
> 
> I think the P-8 is the best Aurora replacement we can get (they had me sold at '73-'...), but it's not like there are a whole of  other choices out there (Nimrod 2000s? Il-38s? blimps?). The per-unit pricetag is just going to make it a difficult sell here.
> 
> If you look in the opposite direction from FWSAR, I think there was also supposed to be an AEW&C -style variant of the P-8 for the USN at one point in time. This doesn't seem to have materialized yet, but a P-8 purchase might make it more economically feasible for Canada to purchase/operate something like a Wedgetail, or Turkey's new 737 variant. This should allow the CF to get the job done with fewer airframes (and have new capabilties too), but again, unit purchase cost is brutal.
> 
> While we're talking the about timeframe of an Aurora replacement, we also talking about the timeframe for replacing a lot of other airframes too. When the CF-18 gets replaced, it obviously won't be one-for-one, but a 737 with some big ugly stand-off missiles could be better to have than a fast jet in some scenarios anyways. Especially if that scenario is happening a long ways away (places like north of 60).
> 
> What else can you squeeze out of this airframe? The more stuff it can do, the easier it is to justify buying it. And we _are_ liable to be stuck with them for most of my lifetime.
> 
> And what is a feasible number of P-8s? 10?



FoverF,

Great post.  

First, about the MMA being multi-mission capable, all of the things you listed are already capabilities that are employed on the Aurora, so nothing new here.  The Aurora is already a MMA, we are just labeling the new airframe with a catchy name in an attempt to sell the idea (CMA - Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft).  CP-140 Block III will enhance those existing capabilities a lot but CMA will stretch them even more.  One capability that will likely come on line with Block III and certainly would be online with MMA is a AGS capability, which is a ground surveillance capablity, like J-STARS in the states.  Regarding CMA having long range stand-off land attack missiles, giddy-up; let's buy some!  The Aurora has had this capability as an unfunded project since about '98 or so, and it almost saw the light of day in about 2002.  Just after Kosovo, USN P-3s equipped with SLAM-ER were called the most capable attack asset by the air component commander.  A lot of our leadership wanted our CP-140s to have the capability, but we were broke.

As for buying jets with an a AEW capability, if we chose the P8 and the WEDGETAIL (both B737 airframes), the benefit would be a single training establishment for pilots, common heavy maintenance, and common supply systems on a proven airframe.

Regarding how many airframes: it would be very unrealistic of me to state a number based on my rather sketchy knowledge of the P-8 and its capabilities.  I think we should buy at least 18 because we have a three ocean country and because I still think we will need to be able to deploy a det that can be self-sustaining.  But that figure is just a guess.  As for WEDGETAIL, we currently always deploy our F-18s as part of a coalition with organic Alliance AEW assets. But having WEDGETAIL would give us the capability to deploy our fighters on our own.  As an air force and as a nation, we have to ask ourselves if this is ever a realistic option and whether the cost is worth paying.  One really good benefit would be a true over the horizon capability for the north, and as a training vehicle for our F-18 guys.  If we decided to get these, we would need about 7 for a true deployable capability, and we could get by with as little as four if it was just for training.  That would mean a fleet of 22-25 B737s.  What would that cost, $18 Billion? Ain't gonna happen.

We will probably get about 6 or 8, maybe 10 P-8s and a bunch of UAVs.  

Bart


----------



## FoverF

Which of course brings us to the elephant in the Aurora-replacement room, the UAVs. 

Canada's going to need a $$ surveillance UAV, and the Navy's going to want one for it's ships.

The naval UAV topic is a thread unto itself, but aviation support to the navy is a major portion of what we're talking about. It's definitely far enough outside my lane that I won't stay here long, but naval UAVs are crucial to the discussion. A Cyclone is about all the CPF (or probably SCSC or DDH or whatever is supposedly in the pipeline), can handle, and doesn't leave much room in the hangar for a big UAV detachment. The JSSs will be able to carry a substantial UAV detachment, and will accompany most task groups, but I expect the navy wants a UAV that all of it' s surface combatants (and maybe even the MCDV, Orca, and CG) can carry.

In short, I don't really know what the navy is looking for, but I expect that ship-borne UAVs should be in place to carry a good deal of the Aurora's present burden. 
  
One option could see a few GlobalHawks (CanadaHawks?), and whatever the navy wants on it's surface combatants, supporting the P-8. We'd have a long-endurance UAV that can go to the arctic, hang around for a really long time, and actually FIND stuff if it's there (lots of gas, big radar, big airframe). The downside is that we'd need a decent number of GlobalHawks to not be an orphan fleet, and they are not cheap birds (~$100 million each, Germany's EuroHawks were E86 million to build). We would also be replacing the Aurora with more airframes than we're retiring (although they should all be cheaper than the Aurora to operate), with a whole lot of training and infrastructure costs to go along with them, which might make it more economical just to buy a few more P-8s.

Another option is augmenting the P-8 with Firebee-style drones (carried by the P-8s). They are cheap, reliable, can be armed themselves, and are the most mature UCAV technology out there. Nowhere near the infrastructure and operating costs associated with the GlobalHawk, and a small fraction of the purchase costs too. Their expendable nature means that their cost will add up handsomely in the long run, but there's no free lunches with any Aurora replacement options.


----------



## FoverF

As an after-thought:

GlobalHawks might be more affordable/useful as a joint (and I mean REALLY joint) federally-owned, and contractor-operated, asset. Cost and user time could be shared by Environment Canada, RCMP, Customs & Revenue, Coast Guard, AETE, CSA (NSS? USCG? Industry? CRTC?), and any other federal agency or paying customer. 

The only major addition to the CF inventory would be the CF-specific mission equipment modules (a couple million bucks each tho) and maybe some (USAF-trained) operators. But you would probably just use the civy pilots for the most part, since it would be cheaper, and there's no need for unlimited liability. This could see a few birds tasked to the CF at all times, while retaining a pay-as-you-go surge capability of more airframes than the CF would otherwise be able to afford. 

Just an idea. 

(isn't this sorta how satellite resources are distributed?)


----------



## WPA

FoverF and bartbandyrfc are correct on the cost factor the P-8, 

I had suggested that there is a market for a medium size plan MPA Base CRJ 900/ 1000 in Canada and the world. The idea was shot down very quickly.

some was development cost,
had to be compatible with the US, 
No one would buy the plane 
weapons and senors on the plane
support for the ground troops.  :
etc.


Support for the ground troop would better served but a fleet of Reapers UAV that will be purchased thanks to the Manely report. Reaper can do the job better than the upgraded CP140 and P-8 at super large fraction of cost in operation and maintenance cost alone. The reaper is less of a target and more stealthy, does not put pilot and sensor personel lives at risk. 

Some say Astor project for the UK bases on the Global Express from Bombardier as late and over due. The main problem of the project is not the plane. The radar is still being tweaked. However the plane and radar do work very well. The Global hawk had the some problems too and even had a crash or two. The difference is that the US government is using the UAV and fixing the problems the same time because there is a need for it in the war it is fighting.  
  

The thing is people said with Boeing and Airbus producing the 737 and 320 there was no need to the regional aircraft like the CRJs. 
The CRJ are all over and made Bombardier the 3rd largest airplane maker. Not bad for a market that was not there!

Now once again what is in the harm of building a test plane. Some customer could be smaller nations in the world like the option besides us are Norway, Denmark , Greece, Turkey, Israel and etc..  

As for for the the AEW 737  i read in Aviation weekly that he plane is still having major problem and is over budget. However in the same article the Israel has taken delivery of it conformal CAEW  G550 aircraft.
The planes CAEW system is highly automated needing less personal to operate it. Plus the large radar arrays and attach side of the plane has the cabling running though a window so the plane would save time on development, building and re-certification costs for the project. 

There is no reason Bombardier and IAI of Israel can not do the same for the CRJ 900/ 1000 for Canada. 

Some time think outside the box works. Israel has proved it in the form of technology, sensor and weapons to the point that large US and European firm buy the rights to equipment and repackage them and sell it abroad. 
Some equipment:

UAV
ATM
armour 
radar
targeting equipment 
conformal fuel tanks
etc.

a lesson could be learned here.


----------



## FoverF

WPA:

You should maybe look at some of the numbers for the ASTOR program before you suggest it as a cheaper alternative to the P-8

The total program cost, to develop and deliver FIVE airframes, was around $2 Billion ("just over 1 bn pounds")
Flug-Revue quotes an airframe production cost of $131 million (68.6 million pounds)  per airframe. So a quick and dirty calculation for the infrastructure and development costs (but mostly development) comes to around $1.35 billion dollars. That's the harm in building a prototype.  Similarly, when Germany developed the mission equipment package for their GlobalHawks, the cost was around three quarters of a billion dollars, just for a modular pallet that fits into an existing and unmodified airframe. And neither of these a/c have any kind of armament, sono-bouys, MAD gear, or any of the other stuff that you need to kill submarines. 

And while I haven't looked too deep for the delivered program costs of the Heyl Havir G550 CAEW, the initial contract specified a cost of about $120 million per airframe, and this was in 2003 while it was still a paper airplane (I guarantee you it didn't get any cheaper since then).

So we'd be paying enormous development costs to develop an MPA version of the CRJ (while Boeing and the USN are going to pay for the development cost of the P-8 for us), to get airframes that are shorter ranged, unarmed, less capable, but probably just as expensive to purchase. 

And we STILL need to buy something that can KILL SUBMARINES. 

www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRASTOR.htm
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/raf/listings/l0025.html
http://www.gulfstream.com/news/releases/2003/082803.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Would the P-8 based on the 737 be gravel runway capable? If so that means they could land to refuel and rest in the arctic, during the summer months.


----------



## aesop081

WPA said:
			
		

> support for the ground troops.  :



Roll you eyes all you want. This is part of the LRP mission in this country and in many others. 




> Support for the ground troop would SOMETIMES better served but a fleet of Reapers UAV that will be purchased thanks to the Manely report. Reaper can do the job better than the upgraded CP140 and P-8 at super large fraction of cost in operation and maintenance cost alone. The reaper is less of a target and more stealthy, does not put pilot and sensor personel lives at risk.



Some say Astor project for the UK bases on the Global Express from Bombardier as late and over due. [/quote]

It is late. ASTOR is not the solution for us.
  



> i read in Aviation weekly



 :






> Some time think outside the box works.



At the very least, some of us here know what the box looks like because we work in and around the box.



> a lesson could be learned here.



You will notice that i am not taking my lessons on MPAs from AW&ST


----------



## Loachman

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You will notice that i am not taking my lessons on MPAs from AW&ST



I think that you're arguing with my wife.

She accepts everything that she sees in print or on the internet regardless of source, relevance, or nuttiness over my real-world experience too.


----------



## observor 69

I always thought of AW&ST as a very good magazine regards military equipment ??

Mind you Jane's is tops.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> I always thought of AW&ST as a very good magazine regards military equipment ??
> 
> Mind you Jane's is tops.



They all have their share of errors that you will find if you look hard enough.


----------



## FoverF

> Would the P-8 based on the 737 be gravel runway capable? If so that means they could land to refuel and rest in the arctic, during the summer months.



Probably not. 

The 737-200 had a very simple and cheap gravel kit you could install. It consisted of a big deflector skid attached to the nosegear, protection for all the exposed hydraulics and wiring in the wheel wells, sacrificial covering for the flaps, and bleed-air vents on the underside of the intakes to break up the vortices that suck rocks off the ground. 

So far as I am aware, no-one has developed such a kit for the NG-series 737, of which the P-8 is a part. It would be simple and technically straightforward, but the certification cost would be enormous, and the legal liability would be crippling. If you make a kit that allows people to land on crappy gravel strips, then you are legally responsible for the safety of all the idiots who then use your kit to land on crappy gravel strips. 

Since the USN has no shortage of pavement, and no private company will shoulder the liability, the CF would likely have to develop it in-house.  The P-8 will also have all sorts of fancy, fragile, and expensive dielectric panels and antennae on the belly, as well as stores hanging on pylons. These are still going to take rocks, even with a kit, so landing on gravel would get really expensive really quickly. And by the time a gravel kit was developed, tested, and fielded, it would probably have been cheaper and ultimately more useful just to pave an extra runway or two in the arctic.


----------



## aesop081

Colin P said:
			
		

> Would the P-8 based on the 737 be gravel runway capable? If so that means they could land to refuel and rest in the arctic, during the summer months.



Whats wrong with the way we do it now ?


----------



## benny88

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Whats wrong with the way we do it now ?



  Pardon me for my inexperience, but could you describe the way we do it now?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Foverf , thank you for the excellent post on gravel runways, I had forgotten that the underside would be cluttered with extra goodies.


----------



## Rescue Randy

Unfortunately, paving a runway in the Arctic is not as simple as it sounds.  Once paved, the black asphalt heats up so much that the underlying permafrost melts and the runway sinks into the ground.  That is why most northern runways remain gravel surfaced.


----------



## Haletown

Paving runways in the Arctic/permafrost zone is technically rather easy, but very expensive.   A lot of permafrost has to removed and a lot of aggregate,  clean aggregate of the correct sizes needs to be put under the pavement to create a thermal break.    Quite a few very nice paved runways were built back in the day with this technique.

Frobisher Bay/Iqaluit is a good example,  Ft. Chimo/Kuujjuaq/YVP is another that comes to mind


Long time ago I was a DEW Liner and my job was to survey all the  gravel  strips, including core sampling the permafrost (Perigellic Cryaquaept for any soil dudes out there)  calculating the volume of aggregate required,  looking  for the right aggregate sources and then filing reports that never got read.  

Fun Job, great money and I still love my Dew Line Wine 


Of course nowadays there would be hundreds of Enviro groups lined up to save the whatever species from destruction that would complicate the matter


----------



## aesop081

benny88 said:
			
		

> Pardon me for my inexperience, but could you describe the way we do it now?



Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Iqualuit, Inuvik..........paved runways. Seems to work just fine operating out of those locations.


----------



## WPA

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Roll you eyes all you want. This is part of the LRP mission in this country and in many others.
> 
> That Funny. You still did not answer the question/ statement that a Reaper UAV is the Better and First Choice to use. (Many countries  including the US, UK, Italy etc.) Countries are buying the UAV.
> 
> 
> Some say Astor project for the UK bases on the Global Express from Bombardier as late and over due.
> 
> It is late. ASTOR is not the solution for us.
> 
> Yes late just like most gov. projects around the world for many countries. I never said that the ASTOR is a solution for Canada i said the CRJ could and should be promoted as platform for such technology.
> :
> 
> At the very least, some of us here know what the box looks like because we work in and around the box.
> 
> Are you stating the Country of Israel does not know what the box look like? Are you stating Israel does not have a prov-en track record of thinking out the box coming up with new tactics in warfare and the use of technology like UAVs and armour and coastal patrols that have been adopted around the world.
> 
> You still failed to stated that if there is a market a medium size MPA and AEW aircraft of the size of CRJ.
> If there is a market are you saying Canadian business and Canadian Government should not look at option of building the product?
> 
> You also failed to state how big of a fleet of P-8s Canada afford not just purchase of the aircraft, but also operation cost of just doing the normal patrols?
> Patrol of CP-140 have been canceled recently for lack of funds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will notice that i am not taking my lessons on MPAs from AW&ST



Not worth to comment


----------



## Eye In The Sky

WPA said:
			
		

> Not worth to comment



Ya, why listen to someone who actually works in the field... :


----------



## aesop081

Quote from WPA



> Patrol of CP-140 have been canceled recently for lack of funds.



No, they have not.



> not worth to  comment



Nice.




> You still failed to stated that if there is a market a medium size MPA and AEW aircraft of the size of CRJ.
> If there is a market are you saying Canadian business and Canadian Government should not look at option of building the product?



I dont give a rat's behind if there is a market for a mediumsize MPA. Thats Bombardier's problem. If they want to build one thats their decision and has nothing to do with the Canadian government.. What the CF needs is a long-range multi-mission LRPA to replace the CP-140.



> Are you stating the Country of Israel does not know what the box look like? Are you stating Israel does not have a prov-en track record of thinking out the box coming up with new tactics in warfare and the use of technology like UAVs and armour and coastal patrols that have been adopted around the world.



Isreal develops systems that meets its needs. We need something that meets ours. If those things match, great. But Israel does not have anything close to our operating requirements.



> You also failed to state how big of a fleet of P-8s Canada afford not just purchase of the aircraft, but also operation cost of just doing the normal patrols?



10 aircraft minimum. How much its going to cost, i dont know. What can Canada afford i dont know. Thats a political decision. What i do know is that buying an aircraft that provides less capabilities than what we have now is not the way to go. And of course, when you speak of "normal patrols" you continue to demonstrate that you have no idea what the CP-140 currently does.


----------



## WPA

FoverF said:
			
		

> WPA:
> 
> You should maybe look at some of the numbers for the ASTOR program before you suggest it as a cheaper alternative to the P-8
> 
> The total program cost, to develop and deliver FIVE airframes, was around $2 Billion ("just over 1 bn pounds")
> Flug-Revue quotes an airframe production cost of $131 million (68.6 million pounds)  per airframe. So a quick and dirty calculation for the infrastructure and development costs (but mostly development) comes to around $1.35 billion dollars. That's the harm in building a prototype.  Similarly, when Germany developed the mission equipment package for their GlobalHawks, the cost was around three quarters of a billion dollars, just for a modular pallet that fits into an existing and unmodified airframe. And neither of these a/c have any kind of armament, sono-bouys, MAD gear, or any of the other stuff that you need to kill submarines.
> 
> And while I haven't looked too deep for the delivered program costs of the Heyl Havir G550 CAEW, the initial contract specified a cost of about $120 million per airframe, and this was in 2003 while it was still a paper airplane (I guarantee you it didn't get any cheaper since then).
> 
> So we'd be paying enormous development costs to develop an MPA version of the CRJ (while Boeing and the USN are going to pay for the development cost of the P-8 for us), to get airframes that are shorter ranged, unarmed, less capable, but probably just as expensive to purchase.
> 
> And we STILL need to buy something that can KILL SUBMARINES.
> 
> www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRASTOR.htm
> http://www.armedforces.co.uk/raf/listings/l0025.html
> http://www.gulfstream.com/news/releases/2003/082803.html




I am not questioning the sensors or weapons of the aircraft. 
All i am stating is that we could use others platform that could be used.
development of the mission equipment package has already been design contracted out with the CP-140 upgrades.  
Plus i am sure i will be blasted for saying there is a difference development costs mission equipment and intergration costs on a aircraft. 
For example most of the cost for the ASTOR aircraft is for the radar hardware, software and ground station and not the integration cost on the aircraft. 

NO the ASTOR is not my suggestion as a cheaper alternative to the P-8choice .

The US cannot afford to replace each P-3 for a P-8 it is more like every 2 to 3 P-3 for each P-8. 
How could Canada afford a fleet large enough to do the job 18 to 20 aircraft.

Also the operating cost for the large jet maybe to much for the DND budget. 

On DND budget already has: 
JSS
halifax refit 
sub refit
new tanks
UAV's 
the Artic deep port
Artic underwater sensor system proposed
CF-18 upgrades 
CP-140 upgrades
Tow missile purchase
130J purchase
C17 purchase
CH-47 purchase
apov purchase
new polar icebreaker(CCG budget but has i high cost to build)
777 gun
purchase of new truck fleet for the forces 

There is the need to start, continue or restart the programs to replace the following and the money for it:

New fighter aircraft
new derstroiers 
new frigates
new subs
new maritime patrol air craft 
next generation of LAV's and TLAV
etc....

Now some of this has already been paid for or money set aside for the purchace.
However in the eyes of the voters this does not matter. If they feel that the enough money is spent on the military then things can change very quickly.
Face it the liberals proved this last time in power. The military was given just enough to look like progress was being made with some of the project that i list above. 

The Conservatives did great progress to improve the Army and Air force with purchases they made. Most of this purchases are on the low end of the price tag for new procurements i mention above. Plus the Conservatives are already say we need to be careful in spending money for the budgets for the next little while. 

However most of the really big price items still need to be taken care of before thing get really bad like the seakings, AOR ship, subs, trucks etc....
The equipment are rusted out, high maintenance cost for every hour of flight or simply the lost of the capability completely.     

Other words there is going to be some tough choice to be made. 

Plus i am not the only one out there would like to know?

PS i support spending money on the military.


----------



## WPA

WPA said:
			
		

> Not worth to comment



sorry that was for the "You will notice that i am not taking my lessons on MPAs from AW&ST" only


----------



## aesop081

WPA said:
			
		

> sorry that was for the "You will notice that i am not taking my lessons on MPAs from AW&ST" only



I still dont care for your statement and if you have a problem with mine then state why you have a problem. You came in here debating with "i read in (insert magazine name) " and i am responding to you based on my real world experience in this field and so have others.


----------



## FoverF

> CRJ 900 / 1000 purchase as follows:
> 2 MPA with refueling (one with the converted with the sensor package firt for flight testing. second full convert jet with 1 or 2 bomb bay in the cargo area forward and aft of the wings (location not sure), hadpoint on the wings 2 each and finally a refueling probe.



I hate to break it to you, but you're going to have a lot more to do than 'integration' if you want a CRJ to carry crew stations, surveillance radar, FLIR, a spotlight, an ESM suite, a couple thousand pounds of MAD gear (that doesn't like having hundreds of pounds of computers humming right next to it, hence why it's usually in a LONG tail boom), sonobouy dispensers, an internal weapons bay, four hardpoints on a wing that was never designed to carry any, a new navigation system, SATCOMs and any other fancy radios you need, a whole new (probably NVG-compatible) cockpit, electronic hardening for all the sparky bits that are sitting right next to each other, hopefully some ECM and DIRCM, and an in-flight refuelling system. For starters, you're going to need a second airframe to carry half of the systems (and probably a third airframe to carry the gas for the first 2). 

And it costs Bombardier millions of dollars to develop a new inlet de-icing system, do you have any idea what they would charge us for THIS? 



> 2 AEW&C planes. Israel  uses a G550 with conformal AESA radar for a full 360 view and the first on has beem deliveried
> 2 Astor for the ground forces



Israel also had to spend untold BILLIONS, and more than a decade, developing the Phalcon radar before hand. We're talking BIG money. This project has also been in the works for a LONG time. This kind of capability cannot be done on the cheap, or on the quick. It would be a miracle if Canada even managed to get an off-the-shelf system.  



> 2 light weight refuel planes (wait wait crazy idea but hear me out) for emergency cases for Canada as the Airbus 310 AR are located in Ontario. plus could be bases in the Arctic and costal bases for refueling MPA and SAR Planes, Helicopters (chinnook purchase, UAVS .



Allright, I heard you out. This is still a bad idea. The A310 can do a decent job as a tanker because it has a 136,000 lb useful load. A CRJ900, even without IFR equipment, has around 32,000 lbs. See the difference? 

It cost  Boeing, Raytheon, and Northrop-Grumman US$3.98 billion (SDD contract) to make a sub-chaser out of the world's most-produced, most oft-modified, and most widely supported airliner. This is a project that is, quite simply, way outside of Bombardier's league.


----------



## bartbandyrfc

WPA said:
			
		

> I am not questioning the sensors or weapons of the aircraft.
> All i am stating is that we could use others platform that could be used.
> development of the mission equipment package has already been design contracted out with the CP-140 upgrades.
> Plus i am sure i will be blasted for saying there is a difference development costs mission equipment and intergration costs on a aircraft.
> For example most of the cost for the ASTOR aircraft is for the radar hardware, software and ground station and not the integration cost on the aircraft.
> 
> NO the ASTOR is not my suggestion as a cheaper alternative to the P-8choice .
> 
> The US cannot afford to replace each P-3 for a P-8 it is more like every 2 to 3 P-3 for each P-8.
> How could Canada afford a fleet large enough to do the job 18 to 20 aircraft.
> 
> Also the operating cost for the large jet maybe to much for the DND budget.
> 
> On DND budget already has:
> JSS
> halifax refit
> sub refit
> new tanks
> UAV's
> the Artic deep port
> Artic underwater sensor system proposed
> CF-18 upgrades
> CP-140 upgrades
> Tow missile purchase
> 130J purchase
> C17 purchase
> CH-47 purchase
> apov purchase
> new polar icebreaker(CCG budget but has i high cost to build)
> 777 gun
> purchase of new truck fleet for the forces
> 
> There is the need to start, continue or restart the programs to replace the following and the money for it:
> 
> New fighter aircraft
> new derstroiers
> new frigates
> new subs
> new maritime patrol air craft
> next generation of LAV's and TLAV
> etc....
> 
> Now some of this has already been paid for or money set aside for the purchace.
> However in the eyes of the voters this does not matter. If they feel that the enough money is spent on the military then things can change very quickly.
> Face it the liberals proved this last time in power. The military was given just enough to look like progress was being made with some of the project that i list above.
> 
> The Conservatives did great progress to improve the Army and Air force with purchases they made. Most of this purchases are on the low end of the price tag for new procurements i mention above. Plus the Conservatives are already say we need to be careful in spending money for the budgets for the next little while.
> 
> However most of the really big price items still need to be taken care of before thing get really bad like the seakings, AOR ship, subs, trucks etc....
> The equipment are rusted out, high maintenance cost for every hour of flight or simply the lost of the capability completely.
> 
> Other words there is going to be some tough choice to be made.
> 
> Plus i am not the only one out there would like to know?
> 
> PS i support spending money on the military.



WPA,

I welcome your support for military spending, but we can't spend without good thinking and good planning.  Your CRJ proposal just doesn't wash.

You need to understand something of crucial importance.  The CRJ cannot meet Canada's patrol aircraft needs.  Here is an analogy that I hope you will understand.  You cannot take a Ford Tempo and make it into a M-1 Abrams.  You can try, but at the end of the day all you are going to have is a very heavy Ford Tempo that can't do the military job you are asking of it.  The owner of the Ford Tempo has to spend his money wisely and sometimes it is just better to go and buy the M-1 Abrams.  If he wants to try and strap a big gun on his Tempo, and make it be able to fight and win in combat, he better have deep pockets to field the kind of engineering and design challenge that he will face.  And make no mistake, Ford won't make these engineering changes for him.  He has to spend the coin. To put the analogy into the context of a new long range patrol aircraft , if we made the CRJ into the new Candian LRPA, Canada would be trying to convert that Tempo into an Abrams. That would be a stupid, stupid, stupid, decision.

So why can't the CRJ do the LRPA role?  The CRJ is a comparitively lightweight, narrow body passenger jet that is a modification of the Bombardier Challenger business jet.  The CRJ was stretched and modified to meet the passenger jet role, and to make this happen the design has already been adjusted and tweaked to the limit of it's capability.  The result is a jet optimized for high altitude transits.  The wing loading is high, which limits the weight the aircraft can carry and limits the aircraft's ability to make high bank and high G manouevres.  It has no weapons bay, and its engines are not optimized for military roles.  It has a weak electrical generation system, and it does not have military specification redundancies that are needed for combat operations.  In my opinion (I am afraid I am as close to beig an expert as is possible), it would make a horrible military aircraft and it would not last very long in the environment we would operate it in. 

Lastly, a country like Canada cannot afford to do large scale "from the ground up" development of a military aircraft.  Bombardier is a business, and it is not in the habit of throwing money down the toilet.  So if Bombardier won't assume the risk of doing the billions of dollars in R&D for your project, who will?   The government will have to assume all that risk on Bombardier's behalf.  The development of the CRJ as a long range patrol aircraft would be represent a very deep sinkhole for the Canadian government. This is not smart.

So why not do something smart instead.  The US government is funding the development of a robust and highly proven airframe to make the P-8.  The 737 is a strong, powerful and exceptional reliable airplane, not a stretched to the limit hybrid of a business jet like the CRJ.   They USN is fronting all the R&D costs, and when the design has been proven and the risks associated with the venture have been eliminated, the US government is more than willing to sell us the plane at production cost.   This makes great feduciary sense; the CRJ LRPA, not so much.

Please don't misundestand me; I welcome your ideas and your keen support for a new LRPA.  But the CRJ is, pure and simple, a bad choice.  Being a cynic, becuase it is such a bad choice I can assume that it's probably just what the government will end up buying.  

Bart


----------



## Colin Parkinson

bartbandyrfc said:
			
		

> WPA,
> 
> Lastly, a country like Canada cannot afford to do large scale "from the ground up" development of a military aircraft.  Bombardier is a business, and it is not in the habit of throwing money down the toilet.
> Bart



I don't know as long as the government is throwing money down Bombardier toilet they will be happy to spend the next decade building that Tempo into a MBT.


----------



## observor 69

bartbandyrfc said:
			
		

> So why not do something smart instead.  The US government is funding the development of a robust and highly proven airframe to make the P-8.  The 737 is a strong, powerful and exceptional reliable airplane, not a stretched to the limit hybrid of a business jet like the CRJ.   They USN is fronting all the R&D costs, and when the design has been proven and the risks associated with the venture have been eliminated, the US government is more than willing to sell us the plane at production cost.   This makes great feduciary sense; the CRJ LRPA, not so much.
> 
> Please don't misundestand me; I welcome your ideas and your keen support for a new LRPA.  But the CRJ is, pure and simple, a bad choice.  Being a cynic, becuase it is such a bad choice I can assume that it's probably just what the government will end up buying.
> 
> Bart




Right on, +1, I agree, thanks for the input, etc etc.


----------



## canuck101

I have a question for you guys i know Bombardier is planning to build a C series plane. I would like to know is how does it compare to 737 in size. does anyone know what price bombardier is going to ask for the C series plane. I know that would not include the cost of making it to military spec's of course.


----------



## FoverF

The C-series is basically a hair smaller than a next-generation 737 in every dimension. 

No-one knows how much it will cost, or even if it will ever fly. But all other things being equal, an airplane's weight is often a surprisingly accurate indicator of it's costs (both purchase and operating), so one would expect both to be a little bit less than a new 737.

http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=3_0&lang=en&file=/en/3_0/3_8/3_8_1.jsp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737


----------



## GAP

Kicking it Up a Notch: Poseidon’s Unmanned BAMS Companion
22-Apr-2008 20:56 EDT
Article Link

BAMS Operation Concept
The world’s P-3 Orion fleets have served for a long time, and many are reaching the end of their lifespans. In the USA, and possibly beyond, the new P-8 Poseidon Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft will take up the P-3’s role. While the P-8’s base 737-based airframe offers strong service & maintenance arguments in its favor, the airframe is expensive enough that the P-3s cannot be replaced on a 1:1 basis.

In order to extend the P-8 fleet’s reach, and provide additional capabilities, the Poseidon is expected to work with at least one companion platform under the BAMS (Broad Area Maritime Surveillance) and/or PUMAS (Persistent Unmanned Aerial Surveillance) programs. The BAMS UAV competition is widely seen as a fight between Northrop Grumman’s high-flying, jet-powered RQ-4 Global Hawk, and General Atomics’ turboprop-powered Mariner (a cousin of its MQ-9 Reaper); but Boeing entered an optionally unmanned G550 business jet.

This DID FOCUS Article explains the BAMS concept, the program’s key requirements, and its international angle. We’ll also cover ongoing contracts and key events related to the program… including the recent announcement of a winner.

Next-Gen Maritime Patrol Systems: Issues and Options 
BAMS: Requirements and Missions 
BAMS: The International Angle [updated] 
BAMS: The Industry Team [new] 
BAMS: Contracts & Key Events [updated] 
Additional Readings & Sources 
More on link


----------



## aesop081

ASLEP (Aurora Structural Life Extension Project) has now been aproved by the Treasury Board.


----------



## GAP

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> ASLEP (Aurora Structural Life Extension Project) has now been aproved by the Treasury Board.



Do you know if they are right back to completing the whole project, or a scaled down version as mentioned, or what?


----------



## aesop081

GAP said:
			
		

> Do you know if they are right back to completing the whole project, or a scaled down version as mentioned, or what?



I dont have the details yet.......

As well, the AIMP Block 3 prototype is back in Texas for system integration.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I dont have the details yet.......
> 
> As well, the AIMP Block 3 prototype is back in Texas for system integration.



Any news?


Matthew.


----------



## Ping Monkey

My spies in RUMINT (ZX) have heard that Blk III has been postponed for another year.   :'(  I just don't know how much more of this good news I can take!

Anyone have any concrete details confirming/squashing such news?


----------



## bartbandyrfc

duffman said:
			
		

> My spies in RUMINT (ZX) have heard that Blk III has been postponed for another year.   :'(  I just don't know how much more of this good news I can take!
> 
> Anyone have any concrete details confirming/squashing such news?



POSS HIGH 3.  Everyone will know more in about two weeks.  Don't despair yet, but there is a good chance that there will be a delay.

Ask your CO at morning brief for an update.


----------



## aesop081

bartbandyrfc said:
			
		

> but there is a good chance that there will be a delay.



Shocking   :


----------



## CougarKing

An update for the Aurora crewmen here, though this is probably not news to them already:



> *Canada Orders P-3 ASLEP Kits*
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canada-Orders-P-3-ASLEP-Kits-05187/
> 
> On Nov 18/08, the Government of Canada awarded a USD$ 156 million contract to Lockheed Martin for 10 structural life extension wing kits. Each kit includes all-new outer wings, center wing lower surface assemblies, horizontal stabilizers, wing and horizontal stabilizer leading edges, and various items for the Canadian Forces’ CP-140 Aurora (P-3 Orion) maritime patrol aircraft. These items will be used by Canada’s Aurora Structural Life Extension Program as needed, and are designed to give the Canadian Forces an additional 15,000 flight-hours of service life per plane. Aging aircraft can develop unpredictable faults, but if this effort is successful, it could extend the planes’ in-service time by 15 years or more.
> 
> Canada becomes the 4th customer under the Lockheed Martin P-3 ASLEP program, which is part pf an array of agreements that include the AIMP upgrade program, and the OWSM long-term maintenance contract. Other ASLEP customers include Norway, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the U.S. Navy; A proposal for Taiwan’s P-3 fleet is also in progress.
> 
> Canada’s Industrial and Regional Benefits Policy applies to this contract, meaning that Lockheed Martin will generate one dollar of economic activity in Canada for every dollar it receives from the contract.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Tue, Sep 24, 2013 – Jill Krop gets a rare tour of a CP-140 Aurora, one of the Royal Canadian Air Force’s long-range patrol aircraft located at CFB Comox with 407(Demons) Long Range Patrol Squadron.

Video Link


----------



## runormal

Thanks for sharing the video, I have been thinking about CTing to this trade for awhile now.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Which trade?  There are 1 NCM (AES Op)  and 2 Officer (Pilot, ACSO) MOSIDs in that video.


----------



## runormal

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Which trade?  There are 1 NCM (AES Op)  and 2 Officer (Pilot, ACSO) MOSIDs in that video.



I should of been more clear. Aes Op Is the trade I am looking at.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I highly recommend it.


----------



## runormal

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I highly recommend it.



Good to hear, what I have read about this trade here and on aesoplounge it looks a really good trade. Everyone recommends it and there seems to be very few people unhappy with their choice. It looks like a really challenging hands on trade with lots of opportunity for travel.  I am going to put in my CT-OT in January and hopefully it will come through around the time my degree is finished.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/national/Feds+shelve+plans+military+patrol+airplanes/9505582/story.html?fb_action_ids=10201505920915185&fb_action_types=og   The last line is a nice summary.   ;D

*Feds shelve plans to buy new military patrol airplanes*

Will spend $2 billion to maintain current fleet to 2030


OTTAWA — The federal Conservative government’s centrepiece defence strategy has taken another hit as plans to buy a new fleet of airplanes to patrol Canada’s coasts and its Arctic territory by 2020 have been effectively shelved.

Instead, documents tabled in the House of Commons on Thursday say the government will invest more than $2 billion to keep its existing Aurora maritime patrol aircraft flying until 2030, by which point the planes will be nearly 50 years old.

The move further hollows out the Conservatives’ so-called Canada First Defence Strategy, which is being rewritten after officials declared it unaffordable only three years into what was supposed to be a 20-year run.

News of the decision also comes just days after Finance Minister Jim Flaherty revealed the government is deferring $3.1 billion in planned military equipment purchases to future years, which will help it balance the budget starting next year.

It isn’t clear whether any of that money had originally been intended to purchase new surveillance aircraft.

Purchased in the early 1980s and intended to detect and destroy Soviet submarines prowling Canada’s three coastlines, the CP-140 Auroras have since been used to provide the military with “eyes in the sky” at home and overseas.

Packed with sensors, they have flown sorties over the Persian Gulf, provided Canadian and allied forces with important intelligence during the 2011 war in Libya, and provided search-and-rescue assistance during recent flooding in Manitoba.

The Auroras underwent a 10-year, $1.6-billion upgrade starting in 1999 to keep them flying to 2020, at which point the Conservative government had planned to purchase 10 to 12 replacements as part of its $240-billion defence strategy.

But budget estimates tabled Thursday said the government has scrapped that plan and instead will “extend the lifespan of the 14 existing aircraft until 2030,” at a total cost of $2.13 billion.

A spokeswoman for Defence Minister Rob Nicholson said it was the air force’s idea to put off the purchase and upgrade the Auroras instead.

“The augmentation of the Aurora fleet will extend the lifespan of these aircrafts to provide service at the best value for taxpayers,” spokeswoman Johanna Quinney said in an email.  “The Aurora is one of the most capable long-range patrol aircrafts in the world and the retrofit will be completed in Canada.”

Air Force Association of Canada national president Terry Chester, who flew Auroras when he was in the military, said he had “mixed feelings” about the decision.

His association, which represents about 7,000 retired forces personnel and associates, had called on the government to continue using the airplanes through 2030 as there had been concern replacements wouldn’t be purchased in time.

But Chester also acknowledged that while he didn’t have concerns about the safety of the Auroras, the older an aircraft gets, the more expensive it is to maintain and operate, and the greater the chances it won’t be available when it’s needed.

The move is likely the latest signal the government is considering a significantly pared down defence strategy as it tries to match what the Canadian Forces needs with its desire to balance the budget.

The Canadian Army in December announced it was pulling the plug on plans to spend $2 billion on new armoured vehicles, while there have been calls to reduce the size of the Canadian military from its current strength of 68,000 full-time members and 27,000 reservists.

David Perry, a defence analyst at the Conference of Defence Associations Institutes, said he expects to see more such decisions to continue using existing military equipment rather than purchasing replacements in next few years.

“We’ve got a lot of old stuff,” he said.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 25, 1979 – The first Canadian Forces CP-140 Aurora maritime patrol aircraft rolled out at Lockheed, Burbank, California.


----------



## Fabius

I have doubts about the financial wisdom of this decision.
We are going to spend more than $2 Billion dollars in around 2020 to upgrade what will be 40 year old aircraft so they can fly until 2030.  Given the increasing age of the aircraft I think it is a fairly safe assumption that a) As the aircraft increase in age they will require more O&M funding to actually operate and b) As the maintenance bill increases the readiness and availability of the aircraft will go down.
If these assumptions are correct we will see the CP-140s flying less hours while costing more and at the end of the additional 10 years we operated them we will spend another $2 + billion to buy new airframes anyway.

Perhaps instead of upgrading old airframes we should spend the money in 2020 to purchase new airframes period.

Although it’s not an apples to apples comparison and I realize there are ancillary costs to adopting a new platform, it is interesting to note that in July 2013 the US placed an order for 13 P -8 Poseidon with Boeing. Total cost of the order (planes and mission sets) $2.04 Billion US.  Additionally in 2009 India  negotiated a deal with Boeing for 8 P-8s at a cost of $2.1 Billion (US), and has since added another 4 aircraft to their order.


My opinion is that choosing to upgrade vice replace is going to likely cost Canada more over the long term than simply spending the cash up front.  Penny wise, Dollar foolish.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I was interested to see the comment "it was the Air Force's idea to scrap the purchase".   Yup, I am pretty sure the Comd RCAF said "hell no, we don't want new aircraft!".   ;D


----------



## 4Feathers

The key senior leadership positions in the RCAF seem to be all filling up with "Fighter Group" personnel. The latest is MGen Wheeler, not to mention the CDS himself. I would not be surprised to see the focus of any new major procurements in the RCAF reflect this trend. It is what it is.


----------



## Kirkhill

By the 2020 - 2030 timeframe what quality of sensors are going to be available?

What is going to be possible from Satellites, LTAs and UAVs?

Given that those sensors will be operating in "friendly skies" with operators and interpreters remote from the risks associated with the platforms, what is the need for those services to be supplied by military personnel?  The government is only funding 65000 "unlimited liability" PYs.  Should some of those PYs be allocated to these very low risk jobs?  Or should the low risk jobs be farmed out to the Civvies and those high risk PYs be husbanded for sharp end positions?

Maybe Patrol Aircraft will still be needed.  Maybe the Poseidon will prove to be the solid performer the Orion has been....

Maybe the job won't be done the same way it is today.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> What is going to be possible from Satellites, LTAs and UAVs?
> 
> Given that those sensors will be operating in "friendly skies" with operators and interpreters remote from the risks associated with the platforms, what is the need for those services to be supplied by military personnel?  The government is only funding 65000 "unlimited liability" PYs.  Should some of those PYs be allocated to these very low risk jobs?  Or should the low risk jobs be farmed out to the Civvies and those high risk PYs be husbanded for sharp end positions?
> 
> Maybe Patrol Aircraft will still be needed.  Maybe the Poseidon will prove to be the solid performer the Orion has been....
> 
> Maybe the job won't be done the same way it is today.



LRP is, IMO, a sharp end position.  Maybe I'm misreading your post.

Civies and satellites aren't going to do the down-low work that needs to be done sometimes.  There are viable sub-surface force threats out there and in numbers.  ASW is not something learned over night and IMO not something to just 'toss away'.  You might never have a house fire, and most people don't but when you have one isn't the time to start training firefighters.   :2c:

Having said that, recent years have proven that LRP assets are far from one trick ponies, the fleet isn't even thru the AIMP complete, and crews are still logging hours.  Like every other part of the CAF, we are 'facing change' with budgets and realities.  

I think the Buffalo has a few years on the Sleek Greyhound of Death; I remember those flying around when the Argus was in service.


----------



## PuckChaser

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> By the 2020 - 2030 timeframe what quality of sensors are going to be available?
> 
> What is going to be possible from Satellites, LTAs and UAVs?
> 
> Maybe the job won't be done the same way it is today.



Unfortunately that's the same sort of thinking that had us trade Avro Arrows for BOMARC missiles, remove guns from F4 Phantoms (I know, a US example), and mothball our Leopard C2 tanks.


----------



## ArmyRick

Not my field of knowledge for sure. It will be interesting to see what happens with this in the coming years.


----------



## Kirkhill

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> LRP is, IMO, a sharp end position.  Maybe I'm misreading your post.
> 
> Civies and satellites aren't going to do the down-low work that needs to be done sometimes.  There are viable sub-surface force threats out there and in numbers.  ASW is not something learned over night and IMO not something to just 'toss away'.  You might never have a house fire, and most people don't but when you have one isn't the time to start training firefighters.   :2c:
> 
> Having said that, recent years have proven that LRP assets are far from one trick ponies, the fleet isn't even thru the AIMP complete, and crews are still logging hours.  Like every other part of the CAF, we are 'facing change' with budgets and realities.
> 
> I think the Buffalo has a few years on the Sleek Greyhound of Death; I remember those flying around when the Argus was in service.




I agree.  LRP work is a sharp end position.  No question.

And I don't expect the requirement to disappear.  I do wonder though, how much of the domestic SovPat load can be done by other means both currently and in the future.  Perhaps LRP work could be more of an expeditionary capability in the future?  Don't know.  Just askin'.

I would expect the balance of capabilities to change over time.  2013 is a long way past 1993 in technology and I would expect 2033 to look a lot different as well.

And while BOMARC was the wrong solution at the wrong time, I think it is hard to argue that that balance of capabilities has shifted away from manned fighters vs manned bombers to a Beyond Visual Range fight that targets missiles with missiles.


----------



## Zoomie

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think the Buffalo has a few years on the Sleek Greyhound of Death;


1967 - just a few more years.


----------



## MarkOttawa

> I was interested to see the comment "it was the Air Force's idea to scrap the purchase".   Yup, I am pretty sure the Comd RCAF said "hell no, we don't want new aircraft!".



Lt.-Gen. Blondin Jan. 2013--last bit:



> ...
> Another example is the CP-140 replacement. We’ve had a big, four-engine plane because it needs range, it needs to fly for 12-14 hours, it needs to carry people in the back, it needs to carry torpedoes and all the sensors. Does the replacement also have to be big? If you look at what is available, you’ve got the Boeing P-8 and Lockheed Martin’s C-130J adapted for maritime operations, but all of these are big airplanes that cost a lot of money. And that puts pressure on the entire air force. What if I could do business differently in 20-30 years? What if I could use a smaller, cheaper airplane to carry just a few people with some equipment in the back, and combine it with a UAV, or even a couple of UAVs, controlled by the mother ship, that would be carrying the torpedoes and the sensors. We can see this coming on our horizon. The technology is not there yet but it may be there in 20-25 years. And if I buy a big airplane now to perpetuate the way I am doing business, I may not be able to take advantage of this. _If I could extend the Auroras for another 15-20 years and maintain the capability I have, that would buy me time. I want to turn this into an opportunity to look at concepts for the future_...
> http://vanguardcanada.com/seeking-alternatives-new-rcaf-commander-turns-to-technology/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Sub_Guy

The problem with the LRP community is that joe public doesn't know what we bring to the table.  Behind nearly every Navy drug bust is a LRP asset, but what do we hear on the news?  Not much, the LRP community was mentioned recently in a press release, and quite frankly I damn near fell off my chair.

The other problem is that fighter guys care about fighters, so if it came down to fighters or LRP assets, then fighters it is!  The LRP job just isn't sexy enough. 

Airborne ASW is an expensive skill to maintain, but it can't be done with a UAV, it can't be done in a Dash-8, we need a plane that has the legs and the ability to reach out and touch someone.  Right now our modernized Cp-140 aircraft are the best out there, even against the P-8, I would put our crew against anything the USN can throw together.  

Ask a submariner, the one thing they are afraid of is the sound of a P-3 buzzing around.


----------



## dapaterson

I would argue that adding uavs to the mix would be a significant force multiplier.  UAV for sense, CP 140 for sense and strike.  Much better legs on some UAVs.


----------



## Sub_Guy

As soon as UAVs can start delivering sonobuoys then yes


----------



## Journeyman

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> As soon as UAVs can start delivering sonobuoys then yes


I guess yes it is then.


George I. Seffers, "Two-in-One Unmanned Aircraft," _SIGNAL Online_, February 25, 2013.  www.afcea.org/content/?q=node/10719‎
"The unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) includes a removable payload bay that is about 12 inches wide, 38 inches long and six inches deep with 'bomb bay doors' for dropping payloads, such as sonobuoys.'  You could use a UAV to deploy a sonobuoy field, which would be pretty exciting,' Tayman says."

If the MQ-1 Reaper can carry 1,700 kg or ordinance (360 kg internal / 1,400 kg external), I don't see sonobouys as being too problematic.


----------



## Sub_Guy

You wouldn't get one of our sonobuoys in that bomb bay.  If UAVs were viable ASW platforms you'd see countries going that route, but you don't.  

There is a reason why you have a big plane for ASW, sonobuoys and Torpedoes take up space, not to mention current effective ASW is done at lower altitudes, which effectively takes the UAV out of the equation.  

The USN is stumbling with the P8 and it's high altitude ASW.


----------



## AirDet

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I guess yes it is then.
> 
> 
> George I. Seffers, "Two-in-One Unmanned Aircraft," _SIGNAL Online_, February 25, 2013.  www.afcea.org/content/?q=node/10719‎
> "The unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) includes a removable payload bay that is about 12 inches wide, 38 inches long and six inches deep with 'bomb bay doors' for dropping payloads, such as sonobuoys.'  You could use a UAV to deploy a sonobuoy field, which would be pretty exciting,' Tayman says."
> 
> If the MQ-1 Reaper can carry 1,700 kg or ordinance (360 kg internal / 1,400 kg external), I don't see sonobouys as being too problematic.



One sonobouy does not a field make....


----------



## Fabius

Dolphin_ Hunter 
Do you see any concerns with utilizing the current CP-140s out until 2030?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> The problem with the LRP community is that joe public doesn't know what we bring to the table.  Behind nearly every Navy drug bust is a LRP asset, but what do we hear on the news?  Not much, the LRP community was mentioned recently in a press release, and quite frankly I damn near fell of my chair.
> 
> The other problem is that fighter guys care about fighters, so if it came down to fighters or LRP assets, then fighters it is!  The LRP job just isn't sexy enough.
> 
> Airborne ASW is an expensive skill to maintain, but it can't be done with a UAV, it can't be done in a Dash-8, we need a plane that has the legs and the ability to reach out and touch someone.  Right now our modernized Cp-140 aircraft are the best out there, even against the P-8, I would put our crew against anything the USN can throw together.
> 
> Ask a submariner, the one thing they are afraid of is the sound of a P-3 buzzing around.



Thanks for posting this, the valuable intelligence work done by assets such as the P-3 is something we often neglect to take into consideration.  I'd also like to point out that given the increasing danger from asymmetric threats, these planes may also prove significant value to the army as well.  I'll share this article with you on the use of US P-3 Orion aircraft in the Jamaican military raids in 2010 to capture Christopher Dudus Coke, leader of the Jamaican street gang "The Shower Posse."

Courtesy of the Jamaica Gleaner
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20111209/lead/lead1.html



> Edmond Campbell, Senior Staff Reporter
> PRIME MINISTER and Minister of Defence, Andrew Holness, has revealed that the United States Government provided surveillance assistance to the Jamaica Defence Force (JDF) through the presence of an aircraft over Tivoli Gardens during the May 24, 2010 operations in the West Kingston community to serve a warrant on convicted drug lord Christopher 'Dudus' Coke.
> 
> Minister of National Security Dwight Nelson during a post-Cabinet press briefing on Wednesday dismissed claims made by The New Yorker, an American magazine, which detailed the role of a P-3 Orion aircraft which assisted the Jamaican Government during the Tivoli operations.
> 
> Yesterday, Holness sought to set the record straight, pointing out that the US was not involved on the ground but only assisted the local military with surveillance imagery and equipment.
> 
> During an emergency press conference at Jamaica House yesterday afternoon, the prime minister moved to quell growing speculation that the Government was hiding information about the involvement of the US.
> 
> No photographs
> 
> At Wednesday's post-Cabinet briefing, Nelson had said: "In discussions with the Jamaica Defence Force and the Jamaica Constabulary Force, no images and no photographs were supplied to the Jamaica Defence Force or to the Jamaica Constabulary Force during this operation. I have made absolutely sure (about this) prior to and since this report has been published."
> 
> The national security minister had also said the US government "did not, at any time, participate in the operations in Tivoli Gardens".
> 
> But yesterday, in giving details about the role of the US, the prime minister said the Americans made an offer to provide surveillance and technical equipment to the Jamaican Government and the offer was accepted. Holness said diplomatic notes were exchanged by the US and Jamaica through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which was part of the normal protocol.
> 
> "The technical term used is general imagery assistance and communications," the prime minister noted.
> 
> According to Holness, "specifics" in relation to the provision of the technical assistance was known only by the JDF and the "relevant agency in the United States".
> 
> He said the Ministry of National Security was not involved in the details of the arrangement and therefore "the minister (Nelson) would not have been aware of the specifics of the assistance involved".
> 
> Holness said: "No foreign force participated in anyway or form in the operations on the ground in Tivoli Gardens."
> 
> Chief of Defence Staff Major General Antony Anderson said the equipment provided by the US "was part of normal agreements we have with the United States and other governments who supply equipment to the Jamaica Defence Force".
> 
> "At that time, what we wanted was an enhanced picture if it was available. The more information we had would lead to better planning. The planning that took place was between ourselves and the Jamaica Constabulary Force, no one else," Anderson said.









Picture of the plane over Kingston, Jamaica






Op GARDEN PARISH Photo






Tivoli Don, Dudus Coke in DEA custody after extradition to United States


----------



## Journeyman

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> You wouldn't get one of our sonobuoys in that bomb bay......


I have no dog in this fight.   You said "As soon as UAVs can start delivering sonobuoys then yes," so I merely posted a link that affirmed UAVs _can_ deliver sonobouys.


----------



## dimsum

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> 'll share this article with you on the use of US P-3 Orion aircraft in the Jamaican military raids in 2010 to capture Christopher Dudus Coke, leader of the Jamaican street gang *"The Shower Posse."
> *



I'm sorry, that's the best name they could give themselves?   >

Re:  using P-3s for Army support, we already did with Auroras in EX Maple Resolve a few years ago.  I'll assume they still get used on large-scale EX like that.


----------



## McG

Is this the project that has been stopped:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/111835.0/all.html


----------



## PPCLI Guy

They are supporting Arctic Ram in Nunavut right now.  After the company jump onto Barrow Lake this morning, we lost comms - they were able to tell us that all 74 jumpers were moving, and hence no significant casualties.


----------



## dimsum

MCG said:
			
		

> Is this the project that has been stopped:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/111835.0/all.html



I thought that was more for a King Air equivalent, sort of like what PAL does on the coasts?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I thought that was more for a King Air equivalent, sort of like what PAL does on the coasts?


Don't know what PAL does on the coasts, but I thought King Air scale, too - something along these lines.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Lt.-Gen. Blondin Jan. 2013--last bit:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I know I am just an oar-puller in the big scheme of things, but IMO you don't base how you do business on "what ifs" and "there may be's".   _What if _China might start equipping its forces in 30 years with light sabers.  _There might be a chance _that Comd CA will want to equip our forces with light sabers as well.

Also, basing a plan for the way ahead on things that don't exist now tells me you'd need to have a good backup plan, which to me is a replacement for the Aurora.  We've shown how well we replace fleets.


----------



## MarkOttawa

See here for PAL (for DFO) and Transport Canada (for Environment Canada) performing civilian maritime air patrol:



> Spill Prevention: National Aerial Surveillance Program
> ...
> Regular aerial surveillance flights have contributed significantly to the decrease in oil discharges, as ships are increasingly aware that their illicit polluting activities can be detected.  The NASP aerial surveillance fleet today consists of three recently modernized aircraft that are strategically placed across the Country. These aircraft are the primary means of monitoring shipping activities and detecting illegal discharges in all waters under Canadian jurisdiction. Two TC owned and operated Dash-8 aircraft are located in Moncton, NB and Vancouver, BC.  There is also one TC owned and operated Dash-7, which is primarily located in Ottawa, ON but is also collocated to Iqaluit, NU for the Arctic-shipping season.
> 
> There are also other aircraft contracted by other Government Departments used to supplement the NASP. Through an agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, TC uses Provincial Airlines Limited (PAL) aircraft for pollution patrols in waters off Newfoundland and Labrador, on an as required basis...
> http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/oep-ers-nasp-2195.htm



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> Ask a submariner, the one thing they are afraid of is the sound of a P-3 buzzing around.



Umm..no. If we're afraid of anything like that, it's a Sea Thing losing power while they're dropping something off or picking something up over us. The only other thing I can think of is being rammed by a skimmer during an attack.

Submariners are unlikely to know if there's an MPA around unless it's radiating and they're at PD.

What an MPA can do is an awful lot of SOVPAT over a very large area in a short time. I think we're going to miss all the aircraft that aren't being upgraded before very long.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> WhatOne of the many things an MPA can do is an awful lot of SOVPAT over a very large area in a short time.



FTFY


----------



## Sub_Guy

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Umm..no.
> Submariners are unlikely to know if there's an MPA around unless it's radiating and they're at PD.



From my time on the boats, while short, and my time tracking boats, and from talking to other dolphin wearers, the MPA is one thing that is hard to shake.  I have yet to lose any of our SSK's, mind you that's active tracking, and a switched on sonar op will (should) not miss the sound of a P-3 buzzing around the roof.


----------



## Baz

Is it correct to say "the *one* thing they are afraid of is the sound of a P-3 buzzing around?"  Isn't the best way to hunt a submarine with your own submarine.


----------



## Sub_Guy

True that!


----------



## ATCO

The RCAF kept the T-33 Silver Star (T-Bird) for 50 years so...  ;D


----------



## WingsofFury

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Re:  using P-3s for Army support, we already did with Auroras in EX Maple Resolve a few years ago.  I'll assume they still get used on large-scale EX like that.



Aurora's have been involved with EX Maple Flag for quite a few years now.

I like the Aurora, and the crews that fly them have always played an important role in sharp end of the spear operations both at home and abroad.   Sadly, jets are what people want to talk about these days and Aurora crews always take a seat in the shadows for that.  

Canada's best kept secret...I possibly think so.


----------



## blacktriangle

Fighters and LRP assets both contribute to domestic security, and are both required to enforce our sovereignty. In my mind, these should be core capabilities that we never compromise on. Even if the CAF were never to deploy overseas again, we should still be maintaining a high state of readiness with these kinds of forces. 

Sadly, no one cares.


----------



## WingsofFury

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Fighters and LRP assets both contribute to domestic security, and are both required to enforce our sovereignty. In my mind, these should be core capabilities that we never compromise on. Even if the CAF were never to deploy overseas again, we should still be maintaining a high state of readiness with these kinds of forces.
> 
> Sadly, no one cares.



Couldn't agree more.

I'm just tired of the Forces in general being the department that budgets are balanced on...gets to the point where I no longer have any idea who to vote for.

Sincerely,

A Civvy who cares.


----------



## PuckChaser

WingsofFury said:
			
		

> Couldn't agree more.
> 
> I'm just tired of the Forces in general being the department that budgets are balanced on...gets to the point where I no longer have any idea who to vote for.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> A Civvy who cares.



I'm just impressed we didn't take another budget hit this year, other than some magic deferred dollars on capital projects we know will be 5 years down the road anyways.


----------



## Edward Campbell

WingsofFury said:
			
		

> Couldn't agree more.
> 
> I'm just tired of the Forces in general being the department that budgets are balanced on...gets to the point where I no longer have any idea who to vote for.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> A Civvy who cares.




It was ever thus. I served in the deep "decades of darkness," even when economic times were good everything, except maybe symphony halls and ballet companies, were higher up the government lists that we, the Canadian Armed Forces, were. In the 1990s Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and Finance Minister Paul Martin explicitly and publicly (and, to their credit, openly and honestly) singled us out for the "hit." There was even a CANFORGEN about it! "Everyone," it said, "including the CF, has to fight the 'war on the deficit.' Be patient, better days will come." 'Better days,' in budget terms, did come ... because we deployed into harm's way, again. But some of the promises: new fighters, new ships, new this, that and the other are still on the drawing boards, ten years after the government of that day (a Liberal one) promised them.

It's important to understand that the military, the defence of the realm as one might say, is usually a low priority for "ordinary Canadians" and governments ~ and all political parties ~ take careful note of what people want ... and don't want.


----------



## McG

It is on again.


> * $35M military plane upgrades highlight Canada's procurement delays
> Upgrade program for CP-140 Aurora aircraft to cost nearly $35M, government estimates*
> James Cudmore, CBC News
> 17 February 2014
> 
> In what amounts to another tacit admission that Canada's military is somehow structurally unable to swiftly procure the gear it needs, the Conservative government has quietly announced it's restarting a twice-cancelled plan to extend the life of the CP-140 Aurora maritime patrol aircraft.
> 
> The news arrived last week in the tabling in Parliament of supplementary estimates.
> 
> The estimates are a request for approval of additional government spending, in this case nearly $35 million "to support projects that will help extend the life of 14 CP-140 Aurora long-range patrol aircraft."
> 
> The military has undertaken a series of refits and modernizations of its 18 aircraft Aurora fleet, beginning in 1998.
> 
> The Aurora long-range patrol aircraft entered service in Canada in 1981. The 33-year-old fleet is used to survey and monitor Canada's maritime approaches and to participate in the hunt against foreign submarines. But the planes are also useful to assist in search and rescue.
> 
> More recently upgraded variants of the planes have been used by Canada to create maps of the ground in Afghanistan, as well as provide surveillance and targeting information to fighter jets during the attack on Libya.
> 
> The military's upgrade program has cost roughly $1.7 billion since 1998 and has included scores of different projects, from upgraded sensors and surveillance gear, to new structures to support aging wings.
> 
> In 2007, the military decided to restructure its upgrade program and only completely modernize 10 of the 18 aircraft, while it started looking for a replacement.
> 
> The cancellation of the modernization program was, at the time, a big deal.
> 
> That decision happened at about the same time Canada began exploring the purchase of large, armed, unmanned aerial vehicles — drones — to patrol and survey both at home and overseas.  The military even created a program to purchase UAVs that it called JUSTAS —  the Joint Uninhabited Surveillance and Target Acquisition System.
> 
> But that program, despite at least seven years of Canadian efforts and massive advances in the use of UAV technology by allies like the United States, has yet to yield a purchase.
> 
> The proposed fleet of drones would inevitably have taken some pressure off of the Auroras, as would have the Conservative government's 2007 plan to purchase a new aircraft to replace the Aurora: the so-called Canadian Multi-mission Aircraft (CMA) also featured in the government's 2008 Canada First Defence Strategy, with an initial operating capability of 2017.
> 
> But that project has faltered as well, and like the JUSTAS program, and the program to buy new search planes, and the one to replace the CF-18 Hornet fighter jets, there's no telling when the military might actually get close to buying a new aircraft.
> 
> In the case of the drones and the multi-mission aircraft, a lack of progress had direct implications for the future of the Aurora fleet.
> 
> Military briefing notes obtained by CBC News under access to information laws indicate the Defence Department had begun to reckon with its lack of substantive progress back in 2011, when it came back around to the idea of increasing the size of the fully modernized Aurora fleet from 10 to 18, as opposed to "aggressively pursuing the procurement" of drones and replacement patrol aircraft.
> 
> The documents show the decision to cancel the Aurora Capability Extension program, as that plan was called, was made in September 2011 after a meeting between the then chief of the air staff, Lt.-Gen. André Deschamps, and the vice-chief of the defence staff, Vice-Admiral Bruce Donaldson.
> 
> "It was decided there was no longer enough time to implement the ACE proposal, and that the Air Force needed to re-focus its efforts on finding an appropriate replacement capability," the briefing note says.
> 
> But it's not clear that re-focusing of Air Force efforts actually occurred.
> 
> The briefing notes suggest just a few months later, the Aurora Capability Extension was back on the table, winding its way through meetings of senior generals and into a so-called Capability-Based Planning assessment.
> 
> "[The Aurora fleet] remains highly relevant to maritime surface surveillance and with an appropriate sensor suite it will be highly useful as an over-land [Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance] platform," that assessment concluded.
> 
> In November 2012, the military tried to make its case to then Defence Minister Peter MacKay in an "options assessment," and then again in a "decision brief."
> 
> Those document suggested without more of the fully modernized Auroras, the military was at risk of failing to meet the duties set out for it in the government's 2008 defence strategy.
> 
> Of course, that strategy had called for the military to acquire new capabilities such as drones and an Aurora replacement aircraft by 2017. The briefing notes suggest the earliest date that now might happen is 2020, and some Auroras could still be flying in 2030 — almost 50 years after they were introduced into the Canadian fleet.
> 
> Keeping the Auroras flying that long would require a large fleet of upgraded planes. Last week's estimates suggest the government is willing to go at least partway there, offering upgrades to four more Auroras, bringing the size of the modernized fleet to 14.
> 
> It's not entirely clear what the upgrades mean for the government's 2008 promise to equip the Canadian Forces with new patrol aircraft or drones, but it almost certainly means both programs are delayed.
> 
> That question was put to the office of Defence Minister Rob Nicholson. His press secretary, Johanna Quinney, responded by email: "The RCAF has recommended that we modernize the Aurora.
> 
> "We are committed to maintaining our maritime surveillance capability and these upgrades will allow us to continue this role.
> 
> "The augmentation of the Aurora fleet will extend the lifespan of these aircrafts to provide service at the best value for taxpayers."


 http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/35m-military-plane-upgrades-highlight-canada-s-procurement-delays-1.2539886


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile a box containing a playstation, controller and duct tape shows up at the Squadron as part of the "upgrade"


----------



## PuckChaser

Colin P said:
			
		

> Meanwhile a box containing a playstation, controller and duct tape shows up at the Squadron as part of the "upgrade"



Well, $10 million of that number has to go to keep the project office running smoothly, right? Right?


----------



## Kirkhill

Meanwhile, since the Justas programme was announced, the CF has established Polar Epsilon with listening stations at CFS Aldergrove, BC and at Masstown, NS.



> *The advantage of Polar Epsilon is that its imagery can be used for precise cueing and location of activities, which allows for a more efficient and cost-effective use of other Canadian military assets, such as patrol aircraft and ships*. Polar Epsilon can also be used to survey for oil or water pollution, aircraft or satellite crash sites. The project however, does not have the capability to detect ballistic missiles, nor can it track small vessels or individuals. The data provided by Polar Epsilon is used primarily to support military operations, but will provide significant information to several departments and agencies to support their daily operations.



See also Justas and Project Epsilon
See also Radarsat 2 

Meanwhile, the International Maritime Organization, under SOLAS, has implemented the transponder based Automated Identification System, doing for ships what transponders have been doing for decades for aircraft.

Meanwhile Radarsat 2 is being enhanced by the Radarsat Constellation Mission which combines both Polar Epsilon surveillance and AIS.



> PARIS - *The Canadian government has sharply reduced the amount of time it takes to collect evidence of illegal fishing and other infractions in its territorial waters by deploying high-cost aircraft only after Canada?s Radarsat 2 satellite has given an initial alert*, according to Col. Francois Malo of Canada?s Department of National Defence.
> 
> Malo said Canadian authorities plan to extend their operational maritime surveillance capabilities with the next-generation Radarsat system, called Radarsat Constellation, by adding an Automated Identification System (AIS) terminal to each Radarsat Constellation satellite.
> 
> The decision is in parallel with a program by Canada?s Com Dev International?of Cambridge, Ontario, which is using its own funds to build several AIS-equipped small satellites after reporting a success of AIS technology in a satellite Com Dev launched in April 2008.
> 
> 
> *Malo said using Canada?s CP 140 maritime patrol aircraft to survey Canada?s coastline ? 243,770 kilometers long, with 250 ports and a traffic volume of 1,700 ships per day ? takes up to 180 hours of flight time to collect the necessary evidence.
> 
> The cost of operating the aircraft is about 27,000 Canadian dollars ($22,330)?per hour,* Malo said here April 28 during a presentation to the Milspace 2009 conference, organized by SMi Group.
> 
> In a test program called Operation Drift Net, Canadian authorities took 80 Radarsat 2 scenes to scan the broad coastal area. High-resolution Radarsat 2 imagery was used once a suspicious vessel was spotted to determine whether it was worth an overhead pass by the aircraft. The result, he said, was the aircraft confirmed the activity just six hours after takeoff.
> 
> ?Deterring illegal fishing would take a huge amount of aircraft time and we now use the satellite to find the vessels in question before cueing the aircraft,? Malo said.
> 
> Malo said Canada?s defense forces have begun their own ship-identification pilot program by using Radarsat data combined with AIS signals produced by satellites launched in 2008 by Orbcomm Inc. of Ft. Lee, N.J. Orbcomm is building a second generation of machine-to-machine messaging spacecraft, all of which will include an AIS terminal on board.
> 
> Malo said Canadian authorities in March started integrating Orbcomm AIS data into marine images taken by Radarsat as part of a program to monitor Atlantic tuna fishing. The data is promising, he said, but suffers from the fact that the Orbcomm information is not easily correlated with the Radarsat data because the two data sets are coming from two satellites in different orbits.
> 
> For this reason, he said, the Radarsat Constellation program, expected to feature between three and six spacecraft, ?will have an AIS capability. Our objective is to have four looks at a given area per day of any area in our zone of interest, with eight minutes of SAR [synthetic aperture radar instrument] per orbit.?
> 
> Malo said Canadian officials have begun talks with Canada?s allies, including the NATO alliance, to determine whether other governments might take part in the program.
> 
> In another project aimed at ship surveillance, Canada?s defense forces have installed Radarsat 2 ground stations, one on the east and west coast of Canada, to collect data on overall ship traffic. The program, called Polar Epsilon, cost 64.5 million Canadian dollars and is designed to deliver information on a ship?s position, length, speed and heading within 15 minutes of being imaged.
> 
> Com Dev officials say they expect to provide Canadian forces with the AIS technology for Radarsat Constellation based on data from the Nanosatellite Tracking of Shipstechnology demonstration satellite placed into low Earth orbit in April 2008.
> 
> The 8-kilogram satellite was placed into a 630-kilometer sun-synchronous orbit to determine whether Com Dev?s proprietary AIS technology works as designed. Under contract to the Canadian Space Agency and Canada?s defense forces, Com Dev is building a follow-on Maritime Monitoring and Messaging Microsatellite (M3MSat), to be launched in 2010.
> 
> The M3MSat will also inaugurate a Com Dev-developed satellite platform the company hopes will be used for multiple future Canadian government programs, Com Dev Chief Executive John Keating told shareholders April 22. Com Dev is currently seeking strategic partners to help finance the rollout of a commercial AIS system.
> 
> ?We aren?t going to bet the farm,? Keating said of the AIS and microsatellite development efforts. ?Appropriate backup plans are in place. We do not expect to generate any meaningful revenue from AIS in 2009, but this next year will be crucial in determining the success of the overall program.?



Meanwhile the US is shying away from Global Hawk



> A $114 million contract to build three more Global Hawk high-altitude unmanned surveillance aircraft was announced back in September, despite the Air Force not even wanting them.
> Facing budget cuts and wanting to save some cash (about $2.5 billion over five years), the Air Force was planning to stop buying the pricey — and rather unreliable — drones and mothball the remainder of the fleet in favor of the battle-tested and accomplished U2 spy plane.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/global-hawk-air-force-budget-cuts-2013-12#ixzz2tbAkhODS




My take-away from all of this is that:

AIS - a civilian initiative and Polar Epsilon & Radarsat - a joint CF/Civilian initiative, are demonstrating improvements to the Recognized Maritime Picture.  This reduces the need for more exotic surveillance solutions like Global Hawk UAVs and High Frequency Surface Wave Radars, and allows the more effective vectoring of LRPs so as to maximize the benefits derived from their use.  This is extending the number of years of service available from the existing airframes by having them spend less time cruising empty seas and more time doing the low and dangerous work of prosecuting targets.

It is all about capabilities and effects - and finding other methods of skinning cats.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Building the ability to observe and monitor is a good and wise choice, but at some point you need the ability to react. Also monitoring is only as good as the people or algorithms looking at the incoming data. I also like the human eye approach, because sometimes it catches that thing that is odd, which leads you to investigate more closely. Plus whether we like it or not, physical presence in the North is required to maintain our claims.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin:

I'm not suggesting that the day has arrived that we can do away with the human intervention that the LRP provides.  All I'm saying is that even in the short interval between the Y2K bug panic, and while eyes have been diverted elsewhere due to the GWOT, technology has moved on and provided alternate solutions to the surveillance problem.  The result is that better, and more cost effective, use can be made of the available resources, including the  Auroras: less time stooging and more time on vectored tasks.

Cheers.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I haven't even heard of Polar Epsilon before, but an interesting project and concept.  I'm not a SME on this area (Space Ops stuff), and lack even the Basic Space Ops qual, but any added tool to the toolbelt is a good thing (usually).

There is value to having a 'wider view' picture to help direct LRP events to get the best bang for the buck out of the shrinking YFR, but there are certain tasks that take place that require an aircraft with folks on board to do, above and beyond ASW.  But this "big picture" stuff should allow better use of gas and flying hours.


----------



## The Bread Guy

It's now official!


> The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C., Q.C. M.P for Niagara Falls, Minister of National Defence, together with the Honourable Peter MacKay, Regional Minister for Nova Scotia, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, today announced Canada is expanding its fleet of upgraded CP-140 Aurora aircraft. Through an existing modernization and life-extension program, four additional Aurora aircraft will gain new and enhanced capabilities and extended service lives. This will expand Canada’s current upgrades fleet to a total of 14 Auroras.
> 
> The Aurora program is a Canadian innovation success story, with Canadian industry delivering a world class capability. With new wings and tail, the Auroras will be restored to a “like new” configuration in terms of the critical structural components, extending the structural life to 2030. At that time, Canada will be better placed to buy its next Canadian multi-mission aircraft.
> 
> The addition of four more updated Aurora aircraft is Canada’s best means of ensuring effective piloted airborne Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities into the future, and the best use of taxpayer dollars. The four additional aircraft will be modernized and life-extended under the existing competitively-awarded industry contracts. These enhancements and modifications are expected to be completed by 2021, and extend the operational effectiveness of the 14 modernized Aurora aircraft to 2030 from 2020 ....


More backstory in the Backgrounder here


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well that statement really puts the lipstick on the pig, the Aurora is a good plane but getting old, I think the original air frames started flying in the late 50's? by 2020 we will be likely scrambling to find parts for them as most other countries will be done with them.


----------



## dapaterson

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well that statement really puts the lipstick on the pig, the Aurora is a good plane but getting old, I think the original air frames started flying in the late 50's? by 2020 we will be likely scrambling to find parts for them as most other countries will be done with them.



First flight 1979.

You're out by two decades.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

oh.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-188_Electra  8)


----------



## Zoomie

The original airframe that the Aurora is based upon was designed and flown in the 50's.  I think that is what Colin was alluding.

Old technology on that bird - cable and pulley driven flight controls with hydraulic boost.  Old turbo-prop engines with equally old designed props.  Props and engines are usually the largest culprit when it comes to aging airplanes - much the same growing pains that we are having with the Buffalo.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In 84 I flew on a electra run by TAME Airlines, except it was really the Ecudorian Airforce, the plane was in camo and had the jump lights in it. Since Ecuador and Peru were still technically at war, the plane was a valid target. Was flying from Quito to Rio Coca in the Amazon.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile TCA flew Vickers Vanguards:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=tca+vickers+vanguard&num=100&client=firefox-a&hs=Vs6&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=YsotU5iKGsHArQGAs4DIAg&ved=0CD8QsAQ&biw=1173&bih=547

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

the Argus was a heavily modified design from the Bristol Britannia


----------



## observor 69

Good enough for Buffalo Airways:
http://www.buffaloairways.com/index.php?page=lockheed-l-188-electra-freighter

But I really  like this one :
G550 Overview
The Gulfstream G550® large-cabin, ultra-long-range business jet turned heads right from the start. Less than two weeks after it entered service, a G550 flew nonstop from Seoul, South Korea, to Orlando, Fla., covering the 7,301-nautical-mile (13,521 km) distance in 14.5 hours and setting a city pair record. In fact, it would go on to establish 40 city-pair records in its first five years of service. 

http://www.gulfstream.com/products/g550/


----------



## Edward Campbell

Is this part of the answer?





The US navy’s Triton reconnaissance sea drone which has the wingspan of a small airliner and can
fly at a height of 10 miles for more than 24 hours.
Photo: Copyright Northrop Grumman Corporation

According to a report in _The Telegraph_, "The [UK] Ministry of Defence is considering using huge drones to patrol Britain’s coastline to help replace the axed Nimrod surveillance aircraft."

The article goes on to say that: "The RAF is lobbying the Government to buy a mixture of drones and conventional manned aircraft to plug the gap." And: "A defence source said: “We are looking at complementary capabilities. There is great mileage in drones for persistent surveillance and a maritime patrol aircraft for the more specific actions.”"


----------



## Baz

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Is this part of the answer?



Apparently the USN thinks so.  My understanding is that it was never the intention to replace the P-3 with just the P-8.  The intention is that the P-8 and the Triton go hand in hand.

At one point NATO AGS was similar.  Originally it was JSTARS.  Then there was going to be a HALE UAV coupled with a manned airborne battle management platform.  That then morphed into just the MALE,  using "another existing" NATO manned platform for the battle management piece.  As the contract was signed there was a lot of hand wringing that it was the wrong HALE (just a SAR/GMTI radar, no other sensors like were being used in Afghanistan).  Recent events in the Crimea *may* prove that the GMTI plus battle management wasn't such a bad idea after all...

There is an argument to be made that the Aurora replacement should be bigger than just ASW.  Keep the ability to intervene in ASW as required, but also add air battle management (ie AWACS) and airborne battle management (ie JSTARS); directly couple to a HALE UAV.  Cheap, no; easy, no; optimal, no; but given we can't afford individual platforms, useful, probably.  The result would be that it would not be perfect in any task, including ASW, but it would be useful in all.

We certainly have to get out of the mindset that is growing that UAVs, especially HALE, are just intel gathering assets, and everything should be piped back to Winnipeg.  Direct tactical is also an important role.  The USN and US Army gets it; the USAF does not.  Same wit Air Forces in lots of other countries, including the UK and Canada.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

That probably goes to how the US Army and USN are organized and fight, Baz.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Baz said:
			
		

> There is an argument to be made that the Aurora replacement should be bigger than just ASW.



The 140 and crews do more than just ASW now.  

Punching Above Its Weight


----------



## Edward Campbell

Good read, EITS, but my question is: should UAVs, like the MQ-4C _Triton_ be part of our 'solution' to the multitude of tasks that _may_ will, no doubt, arise? Or is a totally 'manned' fleet the better choice? 

Edit to add:

What about costs?

Those familiar with my comments in the The End of the MCDVs thread will know that I think we ned to have _affordable_ solutions ~ maybe not everything on the _wish list_, but as much as we can afford. Do UAVs help or hinder?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

UAVs aren't free.  Most people overlook the comms tail that comes with them, to both control them and to get the info they gather backloaded. The US does much of their control via satellite constellation that cost them billions to develop and maintain. In a country like Canada, where a lot of our territory is North of 70, it gets even harder- you have to come up with a constellation of satellites in a polar orbit.

I think UAVs are part of the mix for Canada, but they won't come cheap.


----------



## Baz

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The 140 and crews do more than just ASW now.
> 
> Punching Above Its Weight



My conment was directed at the recent thread here that in effect spoke to the idea was that the only thing MPAs do that UAVs can't is manned ASW intervention... an idea I don't completely agree with. What I was speaking to is the fact that the strength of the manned platform (AWACS; JSTARS, MPA) is the ability to battle manage.

Libya had a lack of ISR assets... anything was useful.  The Aurora was hindered in ita utility to supprt targeting by its lack of OTH backhaul, so they improvised.  Goid on them, but that doesn't m we should use resources to maintain that capabilty.  It ay be hard to maintain JTACs post Afghanistan...

By the way, I kept that article in my desk at AGS, to show certain ISR types a different way.  I also taljed ti a few JSTARS guys.

SeaKingTacco... conversely, UAVs have their place.  If you are backhauling anyway to support the ISRD and targeting, unmanned is cheaper and safer.  As you alluded to, that backhaul is expensive, but its the same cost whether its from a manned or unmanned platform.

I agree with ERC... we need to put the best mix of capabilities, that we can both afford to acquire and maintain, inxludingn train with, in our limited platforms.  Given that, and the realirties of a nation our size, in my opinion a HALe UAV, with SAR/GMTI/air to air/maritine radar, ESM, and EO/aIR, with the ability to work directly with an airborne battle manager like an MPA for the tactical fight; is good value; again, my opinion.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Baz- we are firmly in agreement. I was just pointing out that there are some hidden infrastructure costs with UAVs that often don't get accounted for.

And I try to get value for the Space Apps course I took, once upon a time...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Good read, EITS, but my question is: should UAVs, like the MQ-4C _Triton_ be part of our 'solution' to the multitude of tasks that _may_ will, no doubt, arise? Or is a totally 'manned' fleet the better choice?



I think a mixed fleet (maritime air assets) with MPA as the "big hitter" is the way to go.  I think budgets and the like will determine we don't end up with what we really need, regardless of which way we go.

2030 is a long way away.  I hope we haven't left ourselves short-changed (worse than we think it is, at least).


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> *I think a mixed fleet (maritime air assets) with MPA as the "big hitter" is the way to go. *



I agree as well.  There was an earlier comment about the backlog in Intel dissemination, but that's probably more due to how the USAF runs their operations.  I know it's different than how we (and the Aussies) did it in Afghanistan, with its positives and negatives.  

I, for one, do not support piping all Intel info to Winnipeg if the crews aren't also based there - there is something to be said about being able to physically go into the other pod and talk to the operator/analyst as necessary.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Aussies following USN lead:



> Australia Will Purchase MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft
> 
> Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott confirmed that his country will buy MQ-4C Triton unmanned aircraft to operate alongside the eight Boeing P-8A Poseidons it plans to purchase. Abbott announced the Triton acquisition during a March 13 visit to the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) base at Edinburgh.
> 
> The government did not specify the number of Tritons it will acquire or their planned entry-into-service date, saying those details will be outlined in a pending defense white paper and decided in 2016. The acquisition requires AUD $140 million ($127 million) in new facilities, potentially involving an expansion of the existing facilities at RAAF Base Edinburgh, in South Australia, where the Triton will be based...
> http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-03-17/australia-will-purchase-mq-4c-triton-unmanned-aircraft



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Article Link

Upgrades to Aurora aircraft puts Royal Canadian Air Force on cutting edge of anti-submarine warfare

The silhouette of a nuclear-powered U.S. navy Los Angeles class attack submarine, its periscope slashing through the surface, was quickly spotted by the crew of a Royal Canadian Air Force CP-140 Aurora maritime patrol aircraft during a five-hour mission south of the Hawaiian Islands over the weekend.

Within seconds of the discovery of the kind of boat that Tom Clancy made famous in the Hunt for Red October, the Nova Scotia-based turboprop swooped down to 100 metres above the ocean. The crew dropped several dozen passive and active sonar buoys as they circled near the target on a night when those in the air and at sea had the benefit of a dazzling full moon and a placid sea.

“We went out, hunted for it, found it, tracked it and did some simulated attacking,” said Maj. Angie Thomas who helped oversee the crew working a bank of sensors and radars.

“We had a few glitches with our computers during the flight because no equipment is perfect. But we were able to overcome those as we know we can with the procedures (we have) in place and it actually makes for great training. We try to train as we fight and tonight was a perfect example of that and a great success.”

Precisely what the Auroras anti-submarine warfare (ASW) are capable of is of keen interest to the 22 navies participating in RIMPAC 2014. Two of the three Auroras that the RCAF has brought to the largest naval war games in the world have new Canadian-made Block III sensors and mission computers that may give Canada the deadliest anti-submarine warfare platform in the world.

“By leaps and bounds, we are far more capable with this aircraft,” said Warrant Officer Darren Struble as he prepared to throw a sonar buoy out of a tube that had been opened in the belly of the aircraft. “We are on the cutting edge of anti-submarine warfare.”

The difference between the old monochrome screens and the colour ones used now is that the aircrew have a lot more situational awareness, he said. However, none of the 16 personnel on board the aircraft were able to provide many details about the video game wizardry they work with because almost everything about the Auroras’ expanded capabilities is top secret.

The latest upgrades to the Auroras have greatly improved the aircraft’s intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, the crew said. Such improvements do not come cheap.

While the possible purchase of F-35 stealth fighters and the drawn out acquisition of new helicopters for the RCAF have received far more political and media attention, Canada has quietly spent more than $1.5 billion on upgrading 14 of its 18 Auroras. The price tag includes improvements slated to extend the life of the already 30-year-old airframes for at least another 15 years.

While the Auroras’ high-tech specialty is ASW, the aircraft also carry out patrols to assert Canadian sovereignty in the High Arctic, map out routes across polar ice and tundra for Inuit Ranger patrols, monitor foreign fishing fleets on the Grand Banks and off the British Columbia coast and assist with search and rescue missions over land and sea.

Canada’s three Auroras in Hawaii lined up at a U.S. Marine Corps air station on Oahu Island beside identical U.S.-made P-3 Orion air frames flown by aircrews from Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and the U.S.

“The change is huge. We’ve gone from being nearly obsolete to having the best of the best,” said Sgt. Francois Leveille of Montreal. “I’d put us up against a U.S. Navy P-3 any day.”

The hunt for the L.A. class sub, which was done in conjunction with several surface warships, was relatively easy because these were the first ‘baby steps’ of the month-long exercise. In a few weeks, the Canadian aircrews in Hawaii will participate in much more complicated war games scenarios where it is most unlikely that “enemy subs” will be found near the surface.

“There are a lot of ships, a lot of submarines and a lot of aircraft, so it is a very complex air space, water space and sub-surface space,” said the crew commander, Maj. Doug Publicover, who flew the mission and like everyone else on the aircraft is from CFB Greenwood N.S.

There were “a lot of different accents, a lot of different inter-operabilities where countries do not necessarily speak English as their first language. So it means communicating by radio is sometimes difficult. But we all speak a common language and that is what we are here to enhance.”

Angie Thomas, who is part of the RCAF’s Maritime Proving and Evaluation Unit, said the new state-of-the-art consoles in some of the Auroras are almost impossible to compare with those they replace “because we flex so far forward into the future.”

Having recently taken part in a NATO training exercise in Norway, the major said: “It was really amazing to see the different scenarios that we could put ourselves in, to the different weather that we could fly in and the capability that we could bring to the flight. I absolutely believe that we have one of the leading P-3 Aurora aircraft in the world for ASW to ISR to EW (electronic warfare). It is just going to become more amazing as we figure out the new tools.”

----------------------------------------

*For the record, that isn't a sonobuoy the WO is holding;  it's a SUS (Signal Underwater Sound).

** what the author calls 'sonar buoy' is actually called 'sonobuoy'.


----------



## dimsum

To be fair, if those are the only things the journo is getting wrong, it ain't bad.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Well, he certainly waxed poetic too much in the first two paragraphs.

If you see a submarine periscope "slashing" through the surface, you certainly ain't seeing her "silhouette" cause she's underwater. 

Unless of course, you happen to fly almost over her in daylight at the time and you are in pretty clear waters, but apparently this was a night ops, so …

Just saying


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> To be fair, if those are the only things the journo is getting wrong, it ain't bad.



Yup!  Nice to see a story like that actually.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, he certainly waxed poetic too much in the first two paragraphs.
> 
> If you see a submarine periscope "slashing" through the surface, you certainly ain't seeing her "silhouette" cause she's underwater.
> 
> Unless of course, you happen to fly almost over her in daylight at the time and you are in pretty clear waters, but apparently this was a night ops, so …
> 
> Just saying



Unless you think the entire sail is the 'scope  ;D  which would make the 'feather'...more...pronounced?   >


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Thought it was worth posting a pic of what you are likely to see on the surface if you are workin' a nuc  ;D


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Thought it was worth posting a pic of what you are likely to see on the surface if you are workin' a nuc  ;D



I see the LA v. Boomer race regatta is on again   :nod:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So as the US retires it's P-3 Orion's would some of those airframes be worth upgrading to keep our strength up?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Unless you think the entire sail is the 'scope  ;D  which would make the 'feather'...more...pronounced?   >



Nice pics Eye in the Sky.

The top one makes my point.

The bottom one, however, would not be much of a challenge for an Aurora to spot, or for anyone flying in an old Piper for that matter


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Colin P said:
			
		

> So as the US retires it's P-3 Orion's would some of those airframes be worth upgrading to keep our strength up?



I'm not a SME on the area, just an end-user, but I'll throw this in for thought:

- those airframes likely have tons of hours on them.  While not certain, I'd suspect most of the ones being put to pasture are close to, if not, maxed out on hours.  

- the internal layout is different than ours, and I'd hate to guess at the $ it would cost to 'Canadianize' an old P3 to a CP-140M layout.  Then you'd have to pay for the "modernized" stuff to go in.  If we didn't have the $ to do it to all the current airframes, I'm not sure where the money (and extra money...) would come to take an old US Navy P-3 and turn it into a CP-140M.  

Even if we had more, we'd need the YFR (flying hours) to put them in the air...YFR is on a 'less, not more' trend presently.

Seems like a question better answered by AERE and 500 series guys on the conversion stuff, I'm just a button-smasher, but that's my quick  :2c:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I see the LA v. Boomer race regatta is on again   :nod:



 8)


----------



## The Bread Guy

While I can't tell if this is part of "the" upgrade, this certainly sounds like an upgrade of some sort ....


> The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Canada for AN/AAQ-24(V) Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) systems and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $225 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale on August 12, 2014.
> 
> The Government of Canada has requested the sale of 6 AN/AAQ-24(V) Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) Systems for the CP-140 Long Range Patrol Aircraft. The sale consists of 22 T-2465 AN/AAQ-24(V) Guardian Laser Transmitter Assemblies (GLTA), 52 R-2675 AN/AAQ-24(V) Next Generation Missile Approach Warning Sensors (MAWS), and 16 CP-2793 AN/AAQ-24(V) LAIRCM System Processors, support and test equipment, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated cost is $225 million.
> 
> The proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of a NATO ally that has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in North America.
> 
> Canada will use this capability to enhance the survivability of its CP-140 Long Range Patrol aircraft and crew. The LAIRCM system will provide Canada’s CP-140 fleet with defensive countermeasures against enemy attacks. Canada, which already has AN/AAQ-24(V) systems as part of its C-17 fleet, will have no difficulty absorbing these additional systems ....


----------



## Eye In The Sky

This is, basically, the "Block 4" portion of AIMP.

6 systems.  More than 6 aircraft.   ^-^


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> This is, basically, the "Block 4" portion of AIMP.
> 
> 6 systems.  More than 6 aircraft.   ^-^



If you look at the AN/AAQ-24(V) systems assigned for the C-17, C-130J and CH-147F, you will see that none of those fleets have 100% fitment of DIRCM.  

They each have enough to fulfil the operational requirement.


Regards
G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky

M'kay  ^-^


----------



## Cloud Cover

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Thought it was worth posting a pic of what you are likely to see on the surface if you are workin' a nuc  ;D



Nice ocean, smooth sailing. 

For ASW, is it not what you can "see" (and I use that term as a layman's for "detect" at different spectrum levels)  below the surface that really, really counts?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Yup, that is basically the gist of it.  I won't make a huge guesstimate beyond that on how the wet guys do their thing(not an Acoustician).  

If it is submerged, there are tools to find it.  If it is running close to the surface with some stuff on top, there are tools to find it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Article Link

RCAF receives first Aurora with new satellite comms system

News Article / December 30, 2014

From Royal Canadian Air Force Public Affairs

IMP Aerospace delivered the first of three CP-140M Aurora aircraft fitted with an Interim Beyond Line of Sight (IBLOS) satellite communications system to the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) on December 15, 2014.

The prototype CP-140M Aurora aircraft will provide an improved Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) capability in support of Canada’s military requirements internationally. Working with Department of National Defence personnel, IMP Aerospace provided the installation design and modification of the IBLOS system in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

The system enables secure, high-speed data streaming from the aircraft via satellite in areas which are remote from familiar ground stations.

“IMP Aerospace has supported the CP-140 Aurora fleet since its entry into service with the RCAF,” said company president David Gossen, “and has engineered and installed numerous modifications and enhancements to the aircraft on behalf of the RCAF.”

Lieutenant General Yvan Blondin, Commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force; Director Air Requirements Colonel Ian Lightbody; and 14 Wing Greenwood Commander Iain Huddleston attended the delivery and acceptance ceremony.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Found this recently, it is a very good write up on the 140, with a little bit of info on the Sqn.  Lossie is a nice little spot to work out of.

Article Link

CP-140 Aurora - Canadian MMA

By Ben Montgomery - RAF Lossiemouth, UK 

Externally similar to the widely used and highly successful Lockheed P-3 Orion, the CP-140 Aurora is in fact a different machine entirely. Named after the Greek goddess who restored Orion’s eyesight, Canada took delivery of the first of its 18 strong fleet of CP-140 Auroras in May 1980 (with the last delivered in August 1981) and the aircraft, equipped with a string of upgrades and re-designated CP-140M, is expected to fly until at least 2020. AeroResource joined 405 Long Range Patrol Squadron at RAF Lossiemouth, as part of the Royal Canadian Air Force contingent of Exercise Joint Warrior 14-1 to discover more about the latest incarnation of this formidable platform.

Originally called the CP-3C Orion (but swiftly changed to the CP-140 Aurora), Canada’s Multi Mission Aircraft (MMA) comprised the airframe of the P-3 Orion with a modified version of the mission suite found in the Lockheed S-3 Viking. Purchased to fulfil the anti-submarine warfare role in the northwest Atlantic sector (as part of Canada’s obligations to NATO), the CP-140 replaced the Canadair CP-107 Argus (a locally produced modification of the Bristol Britannia), of which 33 had been in service since 1957. Shortly after the introduction of the Aurora, the Royal Canadian Air Force participated in, and won, the prestigious Fincastle competition at RAAF Edinburgh, Australia. Fincastle pits crews from the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada against one another in tasks involving anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, as well as intelligence and surveillance. The Fincastle win was a good indication of how formidable the Aurora was to become and today it maintains its status as one of the world’s premier Multi Mission Aircraft (MMA).

405 Long Range Patrol Squadron – The Pathfinders

Formed under Article XV (squadrons formed from graduates of the British Commonwealth Air Training Agreement of 1939), 405 Squadron was the first Royal Canadian Air Force squadron to be formed overseas. Standing up at Driffield, Yorkshire in 1941, 405 Squadron flew their first mission on 12-13th June when three Wellingtons bombed railway marshalling yards at Schwerte. 405 converted to the Halifax II in April 1942 before being selected for No.8 (Pathfinder) Group in 1943. As part of the Pathfinder Force, 405 flew Lancasters ahead of bombing raids to mark targets for the rest of the force. The selection for the Pathfinders, as well as the status as the first RCAF overseas unit, is remembered in the squadron motto “Ducimus” – We Lead.

Disbanded at RCAF Station Greenwood in 1945, 405 stood up again in 1950 as 405 “Eagle” Squadron and were assigned to the maritime patrol mission. Equipped with a Maritime Patrol version of the Lancaster, 405 went on to fly the Lockheed P2V-7 Neptune, Canadair CP-107 Argus and today flies the Lockheed CP-140 Aurora. Still based at Greenwood in Nova Scotia, 405 are assigned to 14 Wing as one of two operational Aurora squadrons – the other being 407 Squadron with 19 Wing at Comox (404 Squadron also flies the Aurora in a training role).

Aurora Incremental Modernisation Program

It is widely agreed that during the Cold War most nations with access to nuclear submarines (particularly the USA and Russia) at some point transited, and operated, in the Canadian Arctic. A new resurgence in submarine capability and usage – particularly from China, who in 2006 managed to remain undetected whilst shadowing a USN Task Group and was only identified when it surfaced well within torpedo range – has meant that the Northern Passage is likely to become a strategically more important region. As it stands, only the most modern aircraft, such as the AIMP equipped Aurora and the Boeing P-8A Poseidon, are likely to prove effective at maintaining control of the region if required.

The Aurora Incremental Modernisation Program is aimed to update and keep viable the capabilities of the CP-140 until a future successor platform can be found. Initiated in 1998 and starting in 1999, the AIMP has been split into several Increments known as Block stages. There was speculation that the project may never reach fruition after the Canadian Department of National Defence halted the program amid spending evaluation and consideration of the implementation of new aircraft as a straight replacement. This suspension was short-lived and the AIMP program was reactivated and expected to be implemented on ten of the 18 CP-140s in service, at an anticipated cost of over $2 Billion. In March 2014, Canadian Minister of National Defence Rob Nicholson announced that an additional four CP-140s would be upgraded to Block III standard with all upgrades due to be completed by 2021.

AIMP consists of 23 individual projects, grouped into four installation blocks which will require each Aurora to visit the IMP Aerospace & Defence (who are performing the installation) plant in Halifax four times in order to receive the full Block III CP-140M update.

The fleet is currently in various Block standards, as the Block III aircraft begin introduction to fleet service. This requires a complex management strategy, as well as needing crews to be proficient and current on each block as the systems on board are very different to operate.

Block II

Block II of the AIMP was implemented in two phases focussing on Navigation and Flight Instruments in the first set, and Communications Management Systems in the second. The Navigation and Flight Instrument Modernization Project (NFIMP) provided a new Electronic Flight Director Indicator (EFDI), Electronic Horizontal Situation Indicator (EHSI) and Display Control Units for the pilot and co-pilot, as well as providing EHSI and DCUs at the Navigator-Communicator station. Also installed under NFIMP are two new Embedded Global Positioning System Inertial (EGI) navigation systems, a new Automatic Flight Director System, new Radar Altimeter and Altitude Warning System (RAAWS) and Aircraft Collision Avoidance System (ACAS). The second phase of Block II was the Communications Management System Project (CMS), which updated the UHF, VHF, HF and SATCOM communications ability of the aircraft. 

Block III

The first Block III conversion course (CT0) was launched on March 18th 2013, and comprised one line crew from 405 LRPS, a training and standards crew from 404 LRPS and was based with 14 Wing at CFB Greenwood. The 9 week course comprised distance learning, in-house lectures and demonstrations before moving onto simulator sessions and finally flights in the CP-140M. Joint Warrior 14-1 therefore marked the first deployment of the CP-140M to the UK, with CP-140M 140115 being present alongside Block II example 140113. Other CP-140M examples (140105 and 140111) also dropped in to transport additional mission equipment and personnel. 

Visually, the CP-140M is very similar to the Block II model. The key external difference is the new AN/ALQ-217 Electronic Support Measures (ESM) system on each wingtip which is more bulbous than the legacy AN/ALR-502 Block II system it replaces. Both versions of the ESM system contain four receiver antennas that are used to passively detect and locate Radio Frequency emitters in a full 360 degrees around the aircraft. 

Internally however, the Block III systems are immediately obvious. Block III focuses on a major update of the aircraft Data Management Systems (DMS), with a completely new mission computer and associated multi-purpose displays. Each mission station now has two large monitors with the lower of the pair being a touch input display. The two Acoustic Sensor Operator stations face aft at the rear of the mission area, whilst the two Non Acoustic Sensor Operator stations face forward at the front of the area. In between are three stations on the port side of the aircraft (facing outboard) for Tactical Communications, Tactical Navigations and Navigator-Communicator mission crew. Block III also sees the AN/APS-506 radar system replaced with a new Aurora Imaging Radar System (AIRS)

The first aircraft equipped with Block III mission systems (140108) was delivered to Canada on 12th March 2010.

Future Upgrades

The Royal Canadian Air Force anticipates that the Aurora upgrades will continue past Block III, in a process known as the Aurora Extension Proposal (AEP). This project would complete the AIMP updates for the remaining four aircraft to bring all 18 Auroras up to the same standard. Phase two of the project will provide a new Link 16 Datalink, updated Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) communication system and new Self Defence Suite with these updates expected to provide fleet viability until at least 2030. 

Aurora Structural Life Extension Program

The original Canadian requirement for 24 CP-140s was cut to 18 aircraft by Pierre Trudeau’s Liberal government. However, the operational requirements remained unchanged which has meant that aircraft for aircraft, the CP-140 has been employed at approximately twice the usage rate of P-3s from other nations. As a result the Aurora is reaching its 20,000 hour fatigue life limit far quicker than anticipated. The Aurora Structural Life Extension Program (ASLEP) is being implemented across the CP-140 fleet to extend the structural life of the aircraft from 2020 to 2030.

Lockheed Martin was given a $156 Million contract in November 2008 to provide ten (later fourteen) structural life extension kits for the Aurora, with the installation and integration work performed by IMP Aerospace and Defence in Halifax. The ASLEP kit comprises an all-new outer wing section, central wing lower surfaces, horizontal stabilizers, leading edges (for wing and horizontal stabilizer) as well as other miscellaneous items that will be installed on a case-by-case basis dependant on the fatigue status of each airframe. The ASLEP kit aims to provide an additional 20-25 years of service (translated from a 15,000 additional flying hour requirement) to the Aurora, and will greatly decrease the associated maintenance costs of the aircraft. 

To Lockheed Martin, ASLEP refers to the Aircraft (Not Aurora) Structural Life Extension Program as the kit has already been implemented on the Royal Norwegian Air Force P-3, US Customs and Border Protection P-3 and a limited number of US Navy P-3s.

IMP Aerospace and Defence rolled out the first ASLEP equipped Aurora in December 2011 and, after testing, it was delivered and accepted by 14 Wing at Greenwood in April 2012. The second and third aircraft were delivered in December 2012 and May 2013 respectively, with the RCAF expecting the remaining aircraft to be equipped with ASLEP by 2016. Although originally scheduled for only ten airframes, ASLEP is now proposed to be installed on fourteen, in line with the Block III upgrades to CP-140M standard.

Flying and Fighting the Aurora

Although the primary role for the Aurora was Long Range Patrol and Anti-Submarine Warfare, the demands placed on the aircraft led to a drastic increase in capability. Today the Aurora is a true Multi Mission Aircraft (MMA) and can participate in Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance and Control (ISR&C), Strike Coordination and Reconnaissance (SCAR), Naval Gunfire Support (NGS), maritime interdiction, psychological operations, counter narcotics, sovereignty patrol and search and rescue – alongside the traditional LRP and ASW missions.  

The Aurora typically flies with a crew of ten. 2 pilots and flight engineer on the flight deck, 2 Non Acoustic Sensor Operators (NASOs), 2 Acoustic Sensor Operators (ASOs), a Tactical Navigator, Tactical Communications Officer and a Navigator-Communicator – although the exact composition of the crew can vary depending on the mission required. The crew build up does not change between Block II or III equipped aircraft.

For anti-submarine operations, the Aurora is exposed to the rough flight regime required for effective use of the Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD), mounted in the boom on the tail. Flying at 300ft, the aircraft scans the surrounding ocean attempting to detect minor distortions in the natural magnetic field created by the submarine (through the use of the MAD’s magnetometer). The relatively short range of this system dictates the low altitude needed for operation. 

The Aurora also carries a complement of Sonobuoys which complement the MAD for submarine detection. Three Pressurised Sonobuoy Launch Tubes (PSLTs) are used in addition to the 36 external tubes to deploy the devices – which weigh around 40lb per piece (although this weight could feel twice as much during some of the high-g low altitude manoeuvres encountered during missions). 56 sonobuoys are carried in racks at the rear of the aircraft and deployed through the PSLTs, providing additional launch capability whilst retaining aircraft pressurization. A general purpose chute is also mounted behind the three PSLTs for deployment of smoke markers or illumination flares. After takeoff, a continuity check of the external sonobuoys ensures that none have detached during launch which has happened at Lossiemouth during Joint Warrior on some P-3 variants before.

As well as being able to detect submarines, the Aurora can operate in an offensive capability using the Mark 46 anti-submarine torpedo. Typically also launched from 300ft, the torpedo can be launched from other altitudes but would require reassessment of the launch trajectory before doing so.

Like other aircraft tasked with a Maritime Patrol role (a task in particular focus at the time of writing due to the loss of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 and the multi-national search effort to find the wreckage), the Aurora is also equipped to locate and assist survivors of a maritime accident. Aside from the extremely large cockpit windows there are two spotter locations forward of the main mission area with large bubble windows which provide a clear view over the area around the aircraft and human eyesight can be augmented by a Wescam MX-20 Electro-Optical/Infra-Red (EO/IR) camera mounted in the nose of the aircraft. To assist survivors in the water, the CP-140 can deploy a Survival Kit Air Droppable (SKAD) or Arctic SKAD from the torpedo bay. The SKAD looks like a large red kayak and, upon impact with the water, forms a large life raft equipped with supplies and survival equipment. The aim for the CP-140 crew is to deploy the SKAD such that it inflates its two parts around the survivors, allowing them to gain easy access. Due to the cost of the system, the mission profile to deploy the SKAD is often flown and practiced, but the device itself is rarely deployed. 

The Aurora has a minimum altitude of 100ft, but can only manoeuvre at 200ft or higher because of the roughly 100ft wingspan of the aircraft. For low level operations both pilots must be on the flight deck, but for long duration sorties when above 1000ft, 2 of the three aircrew (2 pilots, 1 flight engineer) can be on deck at a given time, allowing the third some rest time.

In recent times the Aurora has been deployed in Task Force Libeccio as part of Operation MOBILE – Canada’s contribution to Operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR, the NATO mission to protect civilians and impose a no-fly zone over Libya during the 2011 Libyan Civil War. Two Block II aircraft (one each from 405 Squadron and 407 Squadron) deployed to Sigonella in Italy, reporting to the Canadian Forces HQ in Naples. Auroras provided SCAR (particularly after the fall of Tripoli) and NGS capability alongside the role of maritime surveillance, assessing shipping traffic in the area for threats. The Aurora also typically carried two SKADs for a secondary search and rescue duty during sorties and assisted other Canadian deployments by escorting aircraft such as the CF-188 Hornet across the Atlantic (much as the USAF HC-130P/J does for US deployments). 

Joint Warrior Auroras

The Royal Canadian Air Force deployed two CP-140 Auroras to Joint Warrior 14-1 - a CP-140 Block II from 407 LRPS and a CP-140M Block III from 405 LRPS. Support to the deployment was provided by an additional CP-140M which flew in personnel, sonobuoys and other supplies needed for the Joint Warrior missions. Although a CC-177 or CC-130 transport type would have been preferable for support, taskings meant they were unavailable. The additional CP-140 was able to ferry the support equipment required, whilst also providing valuable training for newer Aurora pilots requiring a long distance navigation sortie. 

Each aircraft had one crew assigned to it for the exercise, with each crew being provisionally allotted 7 missions apiece. Joint Warrior offers a unique training experience for the RCAF crews particularly in relation to the Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) operations available. Whilst training in Canada, the Auroras are able to work with the four Victoria class submarines although the chances to do so are often limited due to other demands placed on the fleet. Also of note is that the Aurora crews can become too familiar with the Victoria class, able to recognise it's unique signatures and traces. Joint Warrior provides new targets and challenges, particularly the two submarines participating in the manoeuvres (HNLMS Walrus and HNoMS Utsira). To provide the most experience possible, sorties on Joint Warrior were flown with an additional Aircraft Commander and NASO to allow for crew rest, as well as additional training.

Initial exercises for the Auroras were centred on mutually beneficial training - the CP-140s would brief the submarines on the actions needed to fulfil their training requirements, before making themselves available as training aids to fulfil the submarine training needs. Later missions evolved to larger scale operations, in which the submarines and CP-140s would act in more "real-life" scenarios. Whilst Joint Warrior pits a "Red Force" against a "Blue Force", the side for which the Auroras would operate in the exercise was not a major factor on the training benefits as the CP-140s would operate to similar requirements and scenarios regardless of overall alignment to the exercise.

Having completed their work at Joint Warrior 14-1, 405 and 407 Squadrons departed for home on Friday 11th April 2014. Whilst the long term future of Canada's maritime patrol requirement is still in flux, there is no doubt that the Aurora will once again be present at future Joint Warrior exercises - the mission systems upgrades paying due testament to the viability of the original design, and the world class capabilities that this truly Multi Mission aircraft possesses. 

AeroResource would like to extend their sincere thanks to 405 Squadron and the RCAF Joint Warrior Detachment (Major Ray Townsend, Captain Barrie Ransome, Captain Julien Letarte), Lossiemouth MCO (Flight Lieutenant Helen Baxter) and MAOC (Squadron Leader Lloyd Barrett) for their help in producing this article.


----------



## bigal

Looks like some great pride in the upgrades of the Aurora aircraft.Having an ASW aircraft that is arguably the best of any country for what they do, and having one of the longest coastlines in the world, makes it quite important.I dont know much about what they carry, but it is nice to see Canada buying good equipment for the armed forces.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

She is still a robust versitile platform.  There are a few things we could add that would round her out very nicely though.

- a new EO/IR camera
- a laser designator (not a rangefinder)
- a harder punching torp
- hard points on the wings with stuff to put on them
- more gas and YFR to burn it


----------



## TCM621

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> She is still a robust versitile platform.  There are a few things we could add that would round her out very nicely though.
> 
> - a new EO/IR camera
> - a laser designator (not a rangefinder)
> - a harder punching torp
> - hard points on the wings with stuff to put on them
> - more gas and YFR to burn it


The defensive counter measures coming with block 4 will add to its effectiveness as a sensor platform over land.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

It is more dependant on the threat;  some are harder to defend, some are easy (er) and others are hard or  impossible to defend against.   Much like body armour, there is no 100% solution.


----------



## Good2Golf

The MX-20 isn't useful anymore? ???


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Yes, it is but some of the newer payloads offer some better imagery capabilities.


----------



## Zoomie

Probably not the place to be discussing the weaknesses of a national asset.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ditch said:
			
		

> Probably not the place to be discussing the weaknesses of a national asset.



While I agree with the statement in general, I don't think any weakness is being discussed.  Most info about the general capabilities and systems are available here. 

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/aircraft-current/cp-140.page   I

From there anyone can find open source info on, say, the MX-20 or the torps.

Or this.

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/news-template-standard.page?doc=expanding-the-cp-140-modernized-aurora-fleet/hszrx7qw 

There are open source articles available on the CMS available from a simple google search.  Personally I don't think ANY of that should be public domain info but I didn't get asked my opinion. 

Nothing even close to CG is being talked about...and won't be.


----------



## Good2Golf

Ditch said:
			
		

> Probably not the place to be discussing the weaknesses of a national asset.



Good point, and not the intent of my query, Ditch.  My query should have been something more along the lines of, "EITS, having recently been equipped with quite a capable EO/IR sensor, do you not think that Government will want at least a few years to pass before we ask for an upgrade to the upgrade..." 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky

And I would answer yes it is a good system but newer ones are out and, just like  any other system, such as an iPhone, the newer ones can do the same stuff but usually a little better.


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And I would answer yes it is a good system but newer ones are out and, just like  any other system, such as an iPhone, the newer ones can do the same stuff but usually a little better.



...and the Navy wants better sensors for Halifax before CSC arrives, and the Army better protective equipment and weaponry, and SOF more gadgets, and the RCAF a new FWSAR capability, and the pers side better pay systems, and IE a better real asset management system, and, and, and...

There is always something better around the corner, but we are well behind the "get something new just because there's something better than what you have right now, which still works quite well..." funding curve at DND.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Totally agree.   Just for clarity, there is nothing wrong with the MX20, just the same as there is nothing wrong with my iPhone 4S...but the 6+ has some neat stuff some people wanted (vice needed).

As for discussing stuff that shouldn't be, I know what is open source and what is CG or higher and will be the first to flag anything that shouldn't be on the forum.  My wish list is just that, not a comment on capabilities.   What operator wouldnt want a brand new camera or the newest torps in their bombbay?


----------



## Good2Golf

I'd fit for SLAM-ER first...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

No one ever mentions Brimstone...not a SME on this stuff but looks useful in many scenarios.


----------



## ringo

IMHO Canada should upgrade the entire Aurora fleet instead of just the current 14 a/c, even return the Arcturus to service, doing so should enable of the types service life.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The Arcturus had their hours flown off long, long ago and are in the pasture, put to rest.

How about taking the money you would spend and building a new LRPA?


----------



## Loachman

Merged, as suggested.

Note that, when mariomike (and occasionally others) suggests a merge, I usually do so - sometimes after a long, drawn-out groan when I see how many threads there are for the same topic. Sometimes, I am too busy at the time and subsequently forget. Occasionally, I spot threads ripe for merges myself, but I do not have time to look at all threads, many of which do not interest me, unless they are drawn to my attention for some reason - like this one.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Canada's representation at the Royal International Air Tattoo this year is a Block III Aurora (#105) crewed by some Swordfish folks from 14 Wing.  A few good shots of her on her way into RAF Fairford on the link below:

https://www.facebook.com/airtattoo/photos_stream


----------



## Sub_Guy

“Our constituents as well as hunters and boaters have reported that the area in question is almost devoid of sea mammals and that hunting has been poor in the area for quite some time.”

The Aurora crew did observe two pods of whales and six walruses in the area of interest, Le Bouthillier added.

Everyone has heard this sound.... But no one has recorded it...  This is almost tinfoil hat territory.


----------



## Ping Monkey

[Places tin-foil cap on]

Wonder if our neighbours across the Arctic cap had been installing something in the region... http://www.hisutton.com/Analysis%20-Russia%20seeks%20submarine%20advantage%20in%20Arctic.html


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> “Our constituents as well as hunters and boaters have reported that the area in question is almost devoid of sea mammals and that hunting has been poor in the area for quite some time.”
> 
> The Aurora crew did observe two pods of whales and six walruses in the area of interest, Le Bouthillier added.
> 
> Everyone has heard this sound.... But no one has recorded it...  This is almost tinfoil hat territory.



...and yet. I have actually heard active sonar coming from the water while standing on a ship and while standing on a jetty.

I would place this report in the "certainly not impossible" category.

If nothing else, it was probably a good crew trainer.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> “Our constituents as well as hunters and boaters have reported that the area in question is almost devoid of sea mammals and that hunting has been poor in the area for quite some time.”
> 
> The Aurora crew did observe two pods of whales and six walruses in the area of interest, Le Bouthillier added.
> 
> Everyone has heard this sound.... But no one has recorded it...  This is almost tinfoil hat territory.



How many hunters in the arctic have recording devices? There is no cell coverage, so no phones.


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> How many hunters in the arctic have recording devices? There is no cell coverage, so no phones.



....Iridium...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I doubt that many have them and ours certainly don't record, plus you can barely hear the person speaking on them half the time.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

duffman said:
			
		

> Due the nature of the business, ASW-ish work isn't usually published.  Always nice to see LRPA getting some press:  [Edit to remove Link to article.  See below Link as to reasons why.*]



Guys...

http://army.ca/forums/threads/99046/post-1016031.html#msg1016031



*Edit by George Wallace


----------



## Ping Monkey

Thanks EITS.  That's fair.  I don't post much on this site anyway, and didn't realize the situation between this site and the original story's author.

Another site (albeit international press), on the same topic:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/03/canada-forces-investigate-mysterious-pinging-sound-arctic


----------



## Sub_Guy

I guess my point of the Aurora locating two pods of whales and 6 walruses in the "area" that is devoid of sea life got missed.

I know it's not impossible.  

I just think that if it was as big of an issue that it is being made out to be, that someone would try to record something.  I don't think they are ripping around with IPhones, but surely someone has a recording device.

The guys that are up there have better things to do..


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> The guys that are up there have better things to do..



BALDERDASH!  How busy can a LRP Sqn be in peacetime??

 8)


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I guess my point of the Aurora locating two pods of whales and 6 walruses in the "area" that is devoid of sea life got missed.
> 
> I know it's not impossible.
> 
> I just think that if it was as big of an issue that it is being made out to be, that someone would try to record something.  I don't think they are ripping around with IPhones, but surely someone has a recording device.
> 
> The guys that are up there have better things to do..



Actually, I disagree.

A datum was established. A crew was sent to a part of Canada where we don't normally get to do ASW very often, to investigate that datum.

I think it is brilliant training.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I guess that might be true looking from the outside in...those inside the bubble looking out seem to have a different opinion.   

"Datum"...maybe an area, a very general area...maybe even an AOP but...well, you know about "expanding circles, time late" and such things.   :2c:


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I didn't say that is was a very fresh datum....

It just makes things more challenging...


----------



## Sub_Guy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Actually, I disagree.
> 
> A datum was established. A crew was sent to a part of Canada where we don't normally get to do ASW very often, to investigate that datum.
> 
> I think it is brilliant training.



At no time did anyone think they were being tasked to look for a sub. It was explained as something else.  

We usually drop passive buoys on most flights anyway (as you know).  It would have been just another routine patrol, except this time the ASOs stayed awake for at least 1.5 hours.

The article made it seem like the Aurora was sent up for this reason.  It wasn't, it just happened to be in the area.  


The LRP community is definitely getting its fill of ASW training...


----------



## Ping Monkey

> The LRP community is definitely getting its fill of ASW training...



Glad to hear!  Happy hunting!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ASW, overland. Always something to do in HappyLand.   8)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

When the CCG Captain went aboard the Russian Icebreaker that came to help when the Polar Sea broke a blade. He noted that Russian charts of the Canadian arctic were very detailed and had almost all of the soundings. Something our own charts do not. You can imagine how they got those soundings.


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> When the CCG Captain went aboard the Russian Icebreaker that came to help when the Polar Sea broke a blade. He noted that Russian charts of the Canadian arctic were very detailed and had almost all of the soundings. Something our own charts do not. You can imagine how they got those soundings.



"Give me a ping, Vasili. One ping only, please."  :nod:


----------



## Ping Monkey

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/ground-patrol-ping-1.3940112



> *Ground patrol to investigate mysterious Arctic 'ping' sound*
> 
> _2 acoustic specialists will be sent to Igloolik to meet with locals_
> 
> The saga of the mysterious "ping" noise in Igloolik is set to continue at the end of the month. The Canadian Armed Forces is sending two acoustic specialists to investigate the sound, which was first noticed last fall but has never been recorded.
> 
> A spokesperson for Joint Task Force North confirmed that the specialists will not be visiting the actual area of Fury and Hecla Strait, but rather spending a week in Igloolik to gather information about the sound.
> 
> Locals said the sound was scaring off wildlife in the rich hunting grounds of Fury and Hecla Strait, north of Igloolik. MLA Paul Quassa said he had noticed the lack of wildlife, but did not hear the sound himself on a trip to the area.
> 
> "That passage is a migratory route for bowhead whales, and also bearded seals and ringed seals. There would be so many in that particular area," he told CBC News in November, recalling his own days of hunting there.
> 
> "This summer there was none."
> 
> There was no shortage of theories to explain it, from Greenpeace trying to protect marine mammals to mining operations to an underwater sonar array. None of those theories was borne out by further investigation.
> 
> The Canadian Forces dispatched a CP-140 Aurora aircraft to Fury and Hecla Strait, but the crew did not detect any unexpected sounds with the equipment it used at the time.
> 
> The search happening at the end of January will involve two acoustic specialists who will be deployed with a Canadian Rangers patrol.
> 
> The spokesperson for Joint Task Force North said in an emailed statement to the CBC it is satisfied with the results of the earlier search, but that this is a good chance for their acoustic specialists to gain experience "operating in austere conditions in the High Arctic."
> 
> They will first travel to Yellowknife to meet with a Canadian Rangers instructor.
> 
> The statement also said the patrol will give the specialists an opportunity to gather first-hand accounts of the sound from locals in Igloolik.



Sonar Op #1:  "Okay lady, can you describe the noise you heard?"
Igloolik lady:  "It sounded like a ping."
Sonar Op #2:  "Can you be more descriptive?"
Igloolik lady:  "It was kinda weeoooop-dewwwwp-woo-dooo-booooop-derp."
Sonar Op #1:  _Closes his notebook._  "Well our work here is done."


----------



## Eye In The Sky

That sounds like a fun week of TD.   :blotto:


----------



## GK .Dundas

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> More FYI:
> 
> http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/002310.html
> 
> Umm, according to this,
> 
> http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2004/01/12/daily13.html
> 
> The 737 is Boeings best seller, and the Next-Gen 737 (on which the P8 is based) have been continuously updated.
> 
> On using the 767, while there is some merit to having a longer-ranged aircraft for this role, the 767 is, on average, twice as expensive as a 737 to buy and operate.
> 
> The USN seems to think that slow speed and low altitude operations aren't as important anymore, and would rather have an aircraft that can cruise higher (read larger sensor footprint), and faster (more area coverage).
> 
> The speed advantage is negligible? 440kts vs 330kts is a third faster. I wouldn't call that negligible.
> 
> The old prop P3 is not as fuel efficient as a 737, not even close. Plus, four, old props require a lot more maintenance than two, new turbofans.
> 
> Posted by Smitty | September 12, 2005 7:20 PM



 Perhaps it's time to reconsider the the P 7 ? 
 You remember the original replacement for the P 3 ?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Because of a post by someone named "Smitty" and a post that person made in 2005?   ;D


----------



## Sub_Guy

duffman said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/ground-patrol-ping-1.3940112
> 
> Sonar Op #1:  "Okay lady, can you describe the noise you heard?"
> Igloolik lady:  "It sounded like a ping."
> Sonar Op #2:  "Can you be more descriptive?"
> Igloolik lady:  "It was kinda weeoooop-dewwwwp-woo-dooo-booooop-derp."
> Sonar Op #1:  _Closes his notebook._  "Well our work here is done."



Anything to get out of the office!  Sign me up!  Anything..... please...   Can someone get a recording of this "so-called" noise please?  Why are we wasting resources on such garbage?

"The USN seems to think that slow speed and low altitude operations aren't as important anymore, and would rather have an aircraft that can cruise higher (read larger sensor footprint), and faster (more area coverage)."

Right, because for every 1000 feet of altitude, you increase the detection range of your sonobuoys by 500 yards. 

I think there is a plan afoot to upgrade the CP-140M to keep it flying beyond 2030.  I recall a briefing about engine/prop upgrades, something similar to the Hawkeye.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> for every 1000 feet of altitude, you increase the detection range of your sonobuoys by 500 yards.



I didn't know that.  Makes sense though... :nod:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Is that your detection of your own sonobuoys? Other than your ability to receive the signal, the altitude of the aircraft should immaterial to the detection ability of a sonobuoy floating on the surface?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I think we forgot something in our posts...

 :sarcasm:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A week in Vegas dulled my senses........ :facepalm:


----------



## Ping Monkey

> Right, because for every 1000 feet of altitude, you increase the detection range of your sonobuoys by 500 yards.


----------



## dimsum

Aircraft 101 is 38 years old today.

https://www.facebook.com/RCAF.ARC/photos/a.10150142814416237.282538.61263506236/10154082066261237/?type=3&theater


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Aircraft 101 is 38 years old today.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/RCAF.ARC/photos/a.10150142814416237.282538.61263506236/10154082066261237/?type=3&theater



Pffft. Infant.

 ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa

Note highlighted Canada bit at end--what about CP-140s?



> Allies And The Maritime Domain Strike Enterprise
> 
> The UK, Norway and the US have signed an agreement to work together on anti-submarine warfare (ASW) in the North Atlantic which will leverage the joint acquisition of the P-8 aircraft, another example of the US and its allies an evolving defense capability in which allies are clearly key partners...
> 
> I visited RAF Lossiemouth as well where the Brits are standing up their P-8 base. With the sun setting on the Nimrod, the RAF has kept their skill sets alive by taking Nimrod operators and putting them onboard planes flying in NATO exercises, most notably the Joint Warrior exercises run from the UK. This has been a challenge to key skill sets alive with no airplane of your own, but the US and allied navies worked collectively as the bridge until the Brits get the new aircraft.
> 
> The base being built at Lossiemouth will house not only UK aircraft, but allow Norwegians to train and the US to operate as well. Indeed, what was clear from discussions at Lossie is that the infrastructure is being built from the ground up with broader considerations in mind, notably in effect building a 21st century MDA highway. The RAF is building capacity in its P-8 hangers for visiting aircraft such as the RAAF, the US Navy or the Norwegian Air Force to train and operate from Lossiemouth. ..
> 
> In effect, a Maritime Domain Awareness highway or belt is being constructed from the UK through to Norway. A key challenge will be to establish ways to share data and to enable rapid decision-making in a region where the Russians are modernizing their forces and expanding their reach into the Arctic.
> 
> _Obviously, a crucial missing in action player in this scheme is Canada. In my discussions with Commonwealth members and Northern Europeans there is clear concern about disappearing Canadian capabilities_ [emphasis added]...
> http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/allies-and-the-maritime-domain-strike-enterprise/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325

Lol, the UK doesn't have the capability now, and we've been filling the gap.  The CP-140M was designed to serve until 2030.  The government has committed to a new platform.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Lol, the UK doesn't have the capability now, and we've been filling the gap.



I'll remind you that LRPAs are but one tool in the ASW toolbelt, with strengths in areas and weaknesses in others.  The UK has SSN as an example.  The ability for ONSTA for an Astute compared to an Aurora...not even worth comparing.  My opinion is don't count out any country that has SSK/nuc sub capabilities.  They are also flying Merlins while we launch Sea Kings.  Looking at ASW/TASW from the LRPA view only is myopic and flawed.



> The CP-140M was designed to serve until 2030.  The government has committed to a new platform.



Not quite.  The Aurora has gone thru an extensive, expensive *modernization* program but that doesn't mean a new airframe.  AIMP, ASLEP and AEP are good projects for the fleet, for sure, BUT we are going to be behind countries like Norway, the UK and the USA.  IF the aircraft was designed to fly until 2030...it would not have needed those projects.  

The Nimrod went to the wayside because the direction it was heading (like our modernization program is taking us) was bad, resulting in one exploding mid-air.  So the fleet was scrapped instead of replaced at that time...but they still maintained AND improved their ASW capability with the T-boats and now, the Astute.  RAF commissioned and non-commissioned flyers have been embedded in Western Sqns for a while and will be until their P-8 program is wheels in the well.

Despite the announcement as part of the Defence Policy Review, as it stands now, there is not even a plan in place to start looking for the replacement this decade.  What is being considered, AFAIK, above the Block 4 level stuff is talk of new engines turning NP2000s...unconfirmed rumour at this time though.   You don't want to be the oldest and slowest guy in the TASW game...if everyone is doing Link 16 but you aren't...1 example.

Here's a few other things to consider, WRT how Canada procures/replaces fleets.

- Sea Kings

- FWSAR

- fighter replacement.

:2c:

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/news-template-standard.page?doc=expanding-the-cp-140-modernized-aurora-fleet/hszrx7qw


----------



## jmt18325

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Wrong on both accounts.  The Aurora has gone thru an extensive, expensive *modernization* program but that doesn't mean a new airframe.  AIMP, ASLEP and AEP are good projects for the fleet, for sure, BUT we are going to be behind countries like Norway, the UK and the USA.  IF the aircraft was designed to fly until 2030...it would have needed none of those projects.



I'll have to leave aside all of the rest, because I don't pretend to know things that I, well, don't know.  The CP-140 was not designed to fly until 2030.  The CP-140*M* was designed for that.  I was only including the updated and modernized aircraft in there.


----------



## jmt18325

One this is almost certain at this point (for the foreseeable future, anyway) - we won't be buying the P-8 made by Boeing.


----------



## Kirkhill

Hey JMT!

Can I buy your crystal ball?  Yours always seems to be a whole lot more clear than mine.

Admirable.


----------



## TCM621

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'll have to leave aside all of the rest, because I don't pretend to know things that I, well, don't know.  The CP-140 was not designed to fly until 2030.  The CP-140*M* was designed for that.  I was only including the updated and modernized aircraft in there.


I think the problem here is the word designed. It wasn't designed to fly until 2030, as much is that it is hoped they will stay serviceable and relevant until 2030. I can tell you 13 more years may be a very optimistic number for many of the airframes in the fleet. And when have we ever done anything from consultation to complete replacement in 13 years?


----------



## jmt18325

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I think the problem here is the word designed. It wasn't designed to fly until 2030, as much is that it is hoped they will stay serviceable and relevant until 2030. I can tell you 13 more years may be a very optimistic number for many of the airframes in the fleet. And when have we ever done anything from consultation to complete replacement in 13 years?



You're both right - I said that completely wrong.  I wasn't trying to be an expert, I simply remember the article a few years ago about the modernization being completed on some aircraft and that they were expected to operate into the 2030s.  Why the last government went that route whey originally planned for a new 8 - 10 aircraft fleet, I'm not sure (other than $).


----------



## jmt18325

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Hey JMT!
> 
> Can I buy your crystal ball?  Yours always seems to be a whole lot more clear than mine.
> 
> Admirable.



I just mean that it's unlikely that this government will buy a Boeing product.  That said I don't expect this government to be around post 2024, and I would imagine that the selection will happen somewhere around that time - could be a couple of years later.


----------



## FSTO

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I think the problem here is the word designed. It wasn't designed to fly until 2030, as much is that it is hoped they will stay serviceable and relevant until 2030. I can tell you 13 more years may be a very optimistic number for many of the airframes in the fleet. And when have we ever done anything from consultation to complete replacement in 13 years?


I fear we'll have an LRPA gap like we are having an AOR gap.


----------



## Sub_Guy

I read the article, and he lost me when he stated this "Perhaps one way to generate a way to keep ASW skills alive while Canada works towards 21st century systems might be for Canada to join with the UK and Norway to procure a set of Tritons in common and work common data sharing arrangements."

Tritons will do absolutely nothing to maintain ASW skills.  There's much more to ASW than analyzing sonobuoy information and in reality that's all the Triton will be good for (in the sense of maintaining a skillset).

IMHO we currently have one of the best ASW platforms out there.  The results of a recent (friendly) competition between various nations speaks for itself (we came first/USN with their P8 finished last).   

To think that we will be out of the ASW game because we aren't flying the P8, or our skills will fade because we are flying the P3 is absurd.  There are plenty of reasons why our ASW skills could slip, the airframe isn't one of them.  As for other nations being concerned that our airborne ASW capability, I don't know who the fuck that guy is talking to, but there's been nothing but positive feedback from our allies regarding our Block III capabilities.  Don't get me wrong a replacement is needed, but we are still very relevant in the ASW game. 

The Swordfish sounds interesting and it is based on a Bombardier airframe.  200 sonobuoy capability.  Although there doesn't seem to be much space for extra luggage!  
http://saab.com/globalassets/publications-pdfs/support-and-services/mpa/swordfish_mpa_datasheet_may-2017_web.pdf


----------



## SeaKingTacco

The lack of a bomb bay for torpedos is probably a show stopper.


----------



## Sub_Guy

No bomb bay, but it does have hard points on the wings.

I'm pro-P8, but given the "Bombardier" flavour of the Swordfish, I could easily see our government going with it.  Then again I could see our Government going with a hot air ballon and a couple of nerf guns too.


----------



## dimsum

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> IMHO we currently have one of the best ASW platforms out there.  The results of a recent (friendly) competition between various nations speaks for itself (we came first/USN with their P8 finished last).



I agree with you, but I wonder how much of the results is due to crew training/currency as opposed to how the airplane performs?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> No bomb bay, but it does have hard points on the wings.
> 
> I'm pro-P8, but given the "Bombardier" flavour of the Swordfish, I could easily see our government going with it.  Then again I could see our Government going with a hot air ballon and a couple of nerf guns too.



There is always the Japanese flavour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_P-1

I wonder what trade credits we could get?


----------



## jmt18325

So, uhh, I guess I wasn't so wrong after all....


----------



## Karel Doorman

Colin P said:
			
		

> There is always the Japanese flavour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_P-1
> 
> I wonder what trade credits we could get?



There's another(European)option,the A-319MPA(Airbus)

The A-319 is the smallest of the A-320 family and has a MAD boom and can be equiped with external fuell tanks,for longer flying time.(on station,etc)

Another possibillty would be to(if you want bigger)go for the A-321

so there are options,made in the US-8A Poseidon,made in Canada/Sweden:The Swordfish,Made in Japan:the P-1  or made in the EU:the A319 MPA.


https://www.slideshare.net/aeroplans/a319-mpa-pocketguide


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile for overland ISR:



> UK assessing Poseidon as potential Sentinel replacement
> 
> The United Kingdom is looking to use the Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime multimission aircraft (MMA) to replace the Raytheon Sentinel R1 Airborne Stand-Off Radar (ASTOR) aircraft in the overland surveillance role, the government disclosed on 11 July.
> 
> Answering questions in the House of Commons, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Harriet Baldwin said that the possible use of the Poseidon in this role is one of a number of options currently being explored by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) ahead of the Sentinel’s planned retirement date of 2021.
> 
> “Work is ongoing in the Ministry of Defence, led by Joint Forces Command, to determine the detailed requirements underpinning any future overland capability programme. A number of space-based, manned and unmanned aircraft solutions, including the development of a sensor for integration onto P-8A, are being explored as part of this work,” Baldwin said.
> 
> The ASTOR system that comprises the Sentinel aircraft and its ground-based support elements currently provide UK and allied forces with a long-range, battlefield-intelligence, target-imaging and tracking, and surveillance capability. Since 2007, 5 (Army Cooperation - AC) Squadron based at Royal Air Force (RAF) Waddington in central England has fielded five Sentinel platforms in a range of theatres including Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Mali, and Syria. These five aircraft were originally due to be retired in 2018, but due to their operational success were extended to 2021. However, in order to maintain this capability through to this revised out-of-service date (OSD), one airframe was withdrawn on 1 April of this year.
> http://www.janes.com/article/72227/uk-assessing-poseidon-as-potential-sentinel-replacement



RAF Sentinel (Bombardier Global Express airframe):







https://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/sentinelr1.cfm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Who owns the rights to the P3 airframe? if we are looking Canadian, maybe get Viking to build new airframes?


----------



## Loachman

Most likely Lockheed, still.

But what's the benefit, for a handful of aircraft? Who else would buy enough to make it economically viable?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

LOL there you go with economic sense stuff again, you make a terrible politician 8) The biggest problem with that idea is that it's a Western Canadian company, not part of the "Greater Canada bit". The nice thing about a new P3 Airframe is the ASW suite could be almost drop in and tweak some things. There are roughly 15 countries still flying them (wiki). Even if Viking can't sell the whole airframe, perhaps wings and other bits?


----------



## Loachman

If there's money to be made, why would Lockheed sell the tooling?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Loachman said:
			
		

> If there's money to be made, why would Lockheed sell the tooling?



If we wanted to go down that road, we could tie it to a potential F-35 purchase, where Viking takes on the building of airframes and parts with some license kickbacks to Lockmart.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> No bomb bay, but it does have hard points on the wings.
> 
> I'm pro-P8, but given the "Bombardier" flavour of the Swordfish, I could easily see our government going with it.  Then again I could see our Government going with a hot air ballon and a couple of nerf guns too.



Not until 15 years of *studies* on hot air, balloons, nerf and nerf substitutes.

No guns though.  Guns are bad, m'kay?   ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So, uhh, I guess I wasn't so wrong after all....



About?  Which part?


----------



## Sub_Guy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I agree with you, but I wonder how much of the results is due to crew training/currency as opposed to how the airplane performs?



IMHO our skills have slipped (we are bleeding experience) and we are at a tipping point.  Prior to Block III we really had to work the sensors, now we are getting by because we have a powerful sensor suite to back us up.  

The crew that pulled this off was experienced, so in this case I say it was crew training/currency.   However, the recent results from the SIMEX have exposed several areas in which we are lacking.  The aircraft performs well (back end), it's the crew training/currency that needs to be improved.   This is from an ASW perspective, which is the most challenging task we face on the CP-140.  

I don't know if that makes sense or not.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Makes perfect sense DH.

It's the same for the fleet. ASW is just one of those complex area of warfare that requires a lot of training/currency, and that we never seem to be able to do enough of. Even the fleet has let it slip of late, due to the concentration on surface warfare that recent deployments in the Gulf and the Med have required.

It's not a new phenomena. To quote from the WWII era movie_ The Cruel Sea_:

"So you found a submarine, you say. Oh! Have you? It could be a school of fish, or the Wardroom leftovers the steward just chucked over board. How can you tell the difference? Practice! Lots and lots of lovely practice."


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> IMHO our skills have slipped (we are bleeding experience) and we are at a tipping point.  Prior to Block III we really had to work the sensors, now we are getting by because we have a powerful sensor suite to back us up.
> 
> The crew that pulled this off was experienced, so in this case I say it was crew training/currency.   However, the recent results from the SIMEX have exposed several areas in which we are lacking.  The aircraft performs well (back end), it's the crew training/currency that needs to be improved.   This is from an ASW perspective, which is the most challenging task we face on the CP-140.
> 
> I don't know if that makes sense or not.



The *100%-manned crews* issue is a short/medium term problem, which the solution to is (on paper) easy; train more people.

Having airframes for them to use on training and operational missions, in 2028...that part is the one that worries me.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Article Link

Surveillance plane crews strained after three years flying over Iraq, Syria


OTTAWA — The Canadian military is hoping the recent withdrawal of one of its Aurora surveillance planes from the fight against the Islamic State will help ease what had become a serious strain on the fleet's aircrews.

Two Auroras were deployed to the Middle East as part of Canada's response to ISIL in November 2014, along with dozens of special forces troops, six fighter jets and a refuelling plane.  Using high-powered cameras and sensors, the Auroras gathered data about possible ISIL targets for attacks and air strikes in Iraq and then, after the mission was expanded, inside Syria.

The planes have flown a total of 821 reconnaissance missions since first arriving at their base in Kuwait, with both Canadian and coalition commanders praising their role in the fight against ISIL.  But one of the Auroras was quietly withdrawn from the region in May, without explanation.

In an interview with The Canadian Press, Col. Iain Huddleston, the air force's director of fleet readiness, said the U.S.-led coalition no longer needed the plane because of the recent liberation of Mosul.  Yet he also said there had been concerns within military circles about the impact that three years of non-stop flying over Iraq and Syria was having on Aurora aircrews.


"No word of a lie that it's been a strain on our people," Huddleston said by telephone from his office in Winnipeg, "and we're happy to have some of our contribution pulled back."

While the Royal Canadian Air Force has 14 Auroras, Huddleston said that between long-term and short-term upgrades and maintenance, only four or five are available to fly on any given day.  That includes the previous two — now one — in the Middle East.

Huddleston said many of the Aurora crews have deployed multiple times into the region, where they spend months separated from family and are largely confined to a corner of a U.S. military base in Kuwait.

"We've had people go over and over again," he said. "Has it created retention problems? I don't think we're at that point yet, but it's certainly been a strain."

At the same time, military officials were concerned that the crews weren't doing enough of what the Auroras are actually designed to do: patrolling Canada's coasts for enemy ships and subs.  "We're not as good as we used to be at our other roles," Huddleston said, "and specifically we're concerned about regaining both proficiency and experience in our other roles."

The decision to pull one of the Auroras out of the Middle East should help address both problems, he added, while ensuring Canada continues to help in the fight against ISIL.  

Huddleston is the second military officer in as many months to talk about the toll that the mission, which was recently extended to 2019, has taken on the Canadian Armed Forces.  Brig.-Gen. Peter Dawe, the deputy commander of special forces, told The Canadian Press last month that his troops were operating "on borrowed time" after three years on the ground in Iraq.

Dawe said that was why the government's plan to add hundreds of new special forces soldiers in the coming years, as promised in the new defence policy proposal, was not only welcome but necessary.  
Huddleston said a similar expansion has been promised for the Aurora aircrews.

The Auroras were first flown by the military in the early 1980s and designed to patrol Canada's coastal regions for potential threats.  They have since been upgraded several times and were first used to spot targets on land during the war in Libya in 2011, when NATO was supporting rebel forces in their fight against Moammar Gadhafi.

The Harper Conservatives planned to replace them by 2020, but they are now being upgraded to fly until 2030, when a new surveillance aircraft is expected to be purchased.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Col Huddleston is a former 14 Wing Commander , for those who've never heard of him.  Nice of him to say it like it is publicly.  

As it stands now, the *most times deployed to IMPACT* award is at 4 ROTOs...with some people in the XXX missions flown over the JOA.


----------



## Stoker

It came up in conversation today has a CP-140 Aurora ever fired a Harpoon or any anti shipping missile or can they have the capability?

Thanks


----------



## WingsofFury

Capability yes, fired I have no idea.


----------



## Baz

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> It came up in conversation today has a CP-140 Aurora ever fired a Harpoon or any anti shipping missile or can they have the capability?
> 
> Thanks



The Wings originally had the spots to take the mounts like the P-3, but we have never had the fire control system nor the weapons.  My understanding was we had the mounts but because we never put them on as the Wings aged they became impossible to fit; however, that could be lore.


----------



## Sub_Guy

We had a bird flying around with the mounts on the wings recently here in ZX.  

We have them and they fit, that's all I know.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

We *could* do it but it would take willpower and funding.  

So.  No, it won't likely happen.   :blotto:  (IMO mostly because of the second requirement...)


----------



## Sub_Guy

I keep hoping Block 4 and it's shitty self-defence suite gets shelved in favour of a new aircraft.

We could buy 4 planes and that would solve the LRP manning issues.


----------



## DonaldMcL

Bombardier isn't ready to provide the replacement yet. It's not an election year.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

BobSlob said:
			
		

> Bombardier isn't ready to provide the replacement yet. It's not an election year.



 :rofl: 

and

 :-\


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I keep hoping Block 4 and it's shitty self-defence suite gets shelved in favour of a new aircraft.
> 
> We could buy 4 planes and that would solve the LRP manning issues.



Self-defence...just in time to arrive after the sustained overland stuff.   :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Self-defence...just in time to arrive after the sustained overland stuff.   :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



The technical term is "operational capability cross-phased procurement."   

Regards
G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The technical term is "operational capability cross-phased procurement."
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Weird because those words don't even make the acronym T.O.O.-L.A.T.E.   >


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Weird because those words don't even make the acronym T.O.O.-L.A.T.E.   >



Well, as I've always jokingly said, just sacrifice one airframe + crew and that'll perk people's attention.

Or am I being cynical?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

200+ million was announced back in 2013-14ish for 6 LAIRCMs.   The thought at the time among some of us was it would be sooner than later and then realised it was Block 4 item.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/procurement-projects/aurora-cp-140.page


----------



## Sub_Guy

Typo?

"January 2014
Initial Operational Capability for Block III is achieved. Block III involves the upgrade to three key features:

beyond-line-of-sight satellite communication
link 16 datalink, a military tactical data exchange network used by NATO countries
self defence system"

Call me a cynic, but I foresee something like this happening.  6 planes with self-defence, 6 different planes with BLOS.

Surely the systems will also be unnecessarily complicated, which is a theme we seem to enjoy.  We don't enjoy a simple user interface, we need tabs and a great deal of Firefox windows.   The thicker and more complicated the checklist, the better.   Then we will give our aircrew members minimal training and expect them to be experts.  It'll be a shit job so it'll be assigned to the Acoustic seats, because no one above the rank of WO knows what we do anyway.   

Perhaps army.ca before the morning coffee was a bad idea.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The future is bright dammit.  BRIGHT!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

If the unconfirmed (from an official announcement of some kind) stories are true that have been going around since the summer, the fleet is going to be getting upgraded to the NP2000 props and some kind of engine upgrade.  I've heard the prototype one will be complete sometime around December.  New prop, replace the valve housing with an electronic version, and upgraded T56.  This will extend endurance in the 2-3 hour range I'm told.  Basically the same prop the Hawkeyes are using.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If the unconfirmed (from an official announcement of some kind) stories are true that have been going around since the summer, the fleet is going to be getting upgraded to the NP2000 props and some kind of engine upgrade.  I've heard the prototype one will be complete sometime around December.  New prop, replace the valve housing with an electronic version, and upgraded T56.  This will extend endurance in the 2-3 hour range I'm told.  Basically the same prop the Hawkeyes are using.



*Longer* missions?!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Which equals another project...a bigger Stanley Cup.   :-X


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Which equals another project...a bigger Stanley Cup.   :-X



...attached to an open GP chute.  Problem solved!   :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> ...attached to an open GP chute.  Problem solved!   :nod:



 :rofl:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

BZ to the Demons; out the door and operational in quick time.

Article Link

CAF’s Aurora aircraft gathers aerial imagery in the Caribbean to support hurricane relief

By: Captain Dallas Bregg, Pilot, 407 Long Range Patrol Squadron

On September 15, 2017, a CP-140 Aurora patrol aircraft arrived in Barbados as part of Operation RENAISSANCE IRMA MARIA—the Canadian Armed Forces mission to support hurricane relief in the Caribbean.

The Aurora, which came from 407 Long Range Patrol Squadron out of 19 Wing Comox, British Columbia, had the task of capturing aerial imagery to support partner nations in their relief efforts.

“This valuable imagery helps our partners better assess and respond to the aftermath of Hurricane Irma,” explained First Officer Captain Tai Feng.

The [sic]CC-140 Aurora’s multi-spectrum Block III sensor suite lends itself well the overland watch of the devastation in the region. Specifically, its full motion video capabilities have given British and Canadian commanders on the ground in Barbados a sense of the devastation caused by the hurricane. This information is crucial for assessment and planning purposes.

Due to the complex and constantly changing situation in the Caribbean region, the 18-member crew of the Aurora were given 12-hour notice to move. This flexibility allowed the Aurora to be on the ground in Barbados immediately after being tasked. Once on the ground, the two-member crew of the CAF Deployable Mission Support Centre (DMSC) quickly configured their equipment so it could process the imagery it would collect.

“The aircraft, crew and DMSC were mission capable within 24 hours of landing,” said Captain Feng. “Our team’s flexibility was again tested when were tasked to fly our first mission and then land before the next hurricane hit.”

Working alongside their British counterparts, the CP-140 detachment collected imagery of five of the hardest hit islands: Turks and Caicos, Montserrat, Dominica, British Virgin Islands, and Anguilla.

“My heart goes out to the people of the Caribbean,” said Airborne Electronic Sensor Operator, Corporal Kyle Keigan, while describing his experience filming the devastated islands.

While deployed in the Caribbean, the Aurora flew more than 37 hours, collecting valuable imagery that enabled partner nations to help people in need. The Aurora and its crew departed Barbados to return to Canada on September 24, 2017, once its mission was complete.

Through Operation RENAISSANCE IRMA MARIA, the Canadian Armed Forces is delivering a rapid response that is flexible enough to make an immediate positive impact at the scene of the disaster, and to continue helping people as the situation develops.
--------------------------

The Maple Leaf is as accurate as it ever was.  CC-140 Aurora.   :

The first 2 pictures are CP-140 AES Ops, not 'equipment technicians'.  Who are the stunned fucks working at TML who write this shit?


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ...The Maple Leaf is as accurate as it ever was.  CC-140 Aurora.   :
> 
> The first 2 pictures are CP-140 AES Ops, not 'equipment technicians'.  Who are the stunned fucks working at TML who write this shit?




Ummm....



> By: Captain Dallas Bregg, Pilot, 407 Long Range Patrol Squadron


  :dunno:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I think the article, in part was written by him _but_ the CC-140 and equipment tech stuff has to be by the editors or someone.  Skippers, etc sometimes get tasked with doing a write-up on a mission, but they don't put the final edition into "print". 

There was an Image Tech and, I suspect, a PAO involved;  you can see quotes around the stuff the Dallas and Kyle said to "someone".  I don't think he interviewed himself.   8) From the first pic of the AES Op  "Photo: Corporal Gary Calvé, imagery technician ATF RENAISSANCE".


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Successful deployment to OP CARIBBE in support of JIATF-S (Joint Interagency Task Force - South)

Article Link

A Royal Canadian Air Force CP-140 Aurora is on its way home after assisting the US Coast Guard in seizing and disrupting over 5 tonnes of cocaine.

This is the 3rd highest mission success for the CP-140 over the past 11 years on Operation CARIBBE.


----------



## kev994

Was op caribbe tax free this year?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Not 100% *but* CANFORGEN 226/17 released on 18 Dec that said:

THE ENHANCED TAX RELIEF IS APPLICABLE TO NAMED OPERATIONS (REF D) AND THOSE SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE CDS SINCE REF D WAS ISSUED FOR 2017 DEPLOYMENTS. IT IS APPLICABLE TO ALL CAF MEMBERS DEPLOYED ON AN ELIGIBLE INTERNATIONAL OPERATION, AND IT WILL BE REPORTED USING THE 2017 T4/RL-1 SLIP FOR 2017 INCOME TAX FILING. FOR 2018 AND BEYOND IT WILL BE ACHIEVED THROUGH AT SOURCE RELIEF EFFECTIVE 1 JANUARY 2018

Ref D to the CANFORGEN is "INTERIM CDS/DM DIRECTIVE: CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING DEPLOYED INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONAL MISSIONS FOR 2017 DATED 10 NOV 2017"

I haven't seen the ref or list yet...something to look for tomorrow before closing time I guess.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

This is, according to what I'm hearing (nothing official yet) very similar to the engine/prop upgrade the CP-140 fleet is going to be getting.  Less fuel used/hr, longer ONSTA are the end results. 

Article Link  [pics in article]

*USAF Eyeing New Props and Upgraded Engines To Breathe Extra Life Into Old C-130Hs*

The upgrades could expand the capabilities of the aging airlifters and save the service millions in maintenance and fuel costs

After nearly a decade of on-again-off-again testing, a one-of-a-kind C-130H Hercules airlifter from the Wyoming Air National Guard is on its way for an evaluation of its latest configuration, which includes upgraded engines and eight-bladed propellers with an advanced electronic control system. Refitting other H-model aircraft with the same modifications could potentially save the U.S. Air Force millions in operating costs, but it’s unclear when this might happen.

On Jan. 6, 2018, the C-130H from the Wyoming Air National Guard’s 153rd Airlift Wing, serial number 92-1536, arrived at the unit’s home at Cheyenne Regional Airport in the state’s capital. The aircraft would receive minor repairs before heading to Eglin Air Force Base in Florida for two years of tests, according a report from the Wyoming Tribute Eagle.

The most noticeable is the addition of eight-bladed Hamilton Sundstrand NP2000 propellers to each of the four turboprop engines. These are already standard on the U.S. Navy’s E-2 Hawkeye airborne early warning and control aircraft and C-2 Greyhound carrier on-board delivery (COD) planes.

The new propellers vibrate less and make less noise and the aircraft gains increased thrust at equivalent engine torque settings, in turn improving fuel efficiency. A built-in balancing system reduces the need for ground crews to balance the prop manually at regular intervals and fewer vibrations mean less stress on the aircraft as a whole, further reducing the need for maintenance. As an added bonus, the NP2000 is a modular design that takes up less storage space in warehouses or room inside any aircraft, ship, or vehicle delivering spares to established bases or deployed locations.

On top of that, the updated aircraft has an electronic propeller control system, or EPCS, that makes the units more responsive when the crew rapidly advances the throttle. This Air National Guard says this improves the overall reliability of the propellers by approximately 50 percent and removes a safety issue that had contributed to previous mishaps.

The latest addition to 92-1536 is four Rolls-Royce T-56 Series 3.5 turboprop engines that are more fuel efficient and reliable, saving an estimated $250,000 dollars every year on the cost to operate each aircraft, according to the manufacturer's website. 

More at link


----------



## Underway

It's really in the title.

Everywhere I seem to end up,  I hear are good things about Canada's MPA (or is it LRP now?) community.  How good they are over land and sea .  That they are in high demand all over the world in places as diverse as Syria and the Pacific by our allies.

What makes them so good?  Is it the gear, the way we use the gear, the cockpit management, team management, training, people etc...  Maybe is that we never have enough surveillance assets in real time and scarcity makes them so valued.  A perfect mix of all above?

I have a few ideas but it never seems to materialize here on a thread just what's the special sauce that puts them head and shoulders it seems above all other MPA's.  Unless of course it's just good press and other MPA's do it just as good or better.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Underway said:
			
		

> Everywhere I seem to end up,  I hear are good things about Canada's MPA (or is it LRP now?) community.  How good they are over land and sea .  That they are in high demand all over the world in places as diverse as Syria and the Pacific by our allies.



My initial question back is...where are you hearing this?  From inside Canada only, or are you hearing it from other nations military members as well?


----------



## tomahawk6

Isnt an Aurora with RIMPAC ?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Isnt an Aurora with RIMPAC ?



https://www.skiesmag.com/press-releases/canadian-armed-forces-set-to-participate-in-exercise-rimpac/


----------



## Underway

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> My initial question back is...where are you hearing this?  From inside Canada only, or are you hearing it from other nations military members as well?



Both.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Underway said:
			
		

> Everywhere I seem to end up,  I hear are good things about Canada's MPA (or is it LRP now?) community.  How good they are over land and sea .  That they are in high demand all over the world in places as diverse as Syria and the Pacific by our allies.
> 
> What makes them so good?  Is it the gear, the way we use the gear, the cockpit management, team management, training, people etc...  Maybe is that we never have enough surveillance assets in real time and scarcity makes them so valued.  A perfect mix of all above?



I think the combo of our updated Block III systems (info on Blocks 1 to 4 here, under 4. Implementation) are a part of our overall capabilities.  There is a considerable increase in the ability for all crewmembers to see/share information from Block II to Block III in how our workstations function/look.  Updated sensor capability - specifically with the Acoustics and RADAR, from Block II to Block III is significant.  Our ability to communicate is fairly significant and to share data/get data off the aircraft to ground pers has improved and will improve more with Block IV.

We have a pretty robust capability to train various missions in our simulator; I think this is pretty important actually.

I've never flown with another countries MPA crew or any P-3 crews, so I can't compare from experience how they do it, but I think we expect more from our new crew members (new being less than 2 years on Sqn) than what I've learned how the RAF and RAAF do things, at least for the sensor operators.  They don't just 'operator RADAR and ordinance' for 1 year once they are on crew.  This has benefits and drawbacks.

At the end of the day, I think it is a combo of fairly new sensors, motivated people, time-tested TTPs and tactics, the ability to adapt to new missions quickly, practice them in the simulator before flying them in the real world, and the training people receive on course and once on a crew that makes us good (if we are).  I'm just not sure how good we are against other nations MPAs and crews;  I have my (biased) opinion based on some exercise/non-exercise experiences.



> I have a few ideas but it never seems to materialize here on a thread just what's the special sauce that puts them head and shoulders it seems above all other MPA's.  Unless of course it's just good press and other MPA's do it just as good or better.



I think some of it is also 'good press' too...OP IMPACT, IMO, may have over-stated the contribution to the MESF (can't really say much about the 'why I think that', but its based on 3 ROTOs experience...) that the Aurora provided in the overland roll.

Our reputation in the Maritime role is, IMO, reasonably earned.  We do well at TASW missions helping out our NATO allies, during deployments to OP CARIBBE , and other operations that require a long-legged ISR platform.   

In our SAR role, we are fairly limited on the Rescue part but we are particularly strong on the search part, particularly over water.  The sailboat race SAR that happened mid-atlantic the summer of 2017, it was really when the Aurora got on station that the situation was really understood and assets were moved to affect the rescues.  Not to take anything away from the Herc crews, but they don't have the ability to raise a surface plot/do the RMP piece like the Aurora can and the Aurora was able to see things that the Herc couldn't.

Our limitations also feed into our strengths, I believe.  We don't have a large fleet compared to the USN;  in terms of aircraft, Sqns or crews but the Aurora fleet is also very busy, inside and outside Canada.  This small community and high op tempo translates to a fairly good level of experience at any given time on a variety of mission types.  I think this is the limitation that translates into a strength when it really counts - crews that have the experience and/or the ingenuity and initiative to adapt and accomplish the mission.

My last thought - we do bring in Exchange officers from the RAF, RAAF, and USN.  My experience is they are all experienced aircrew, usually Skippers or Tactical Navigators and experienced NCM aircrew and we get to benefit from their experience as well.  This has been happening for decades as far as I know (they did it when my father was on the Argus back in the late 60s to '81).

That's more wordy than I hoped it would be, but hopefully it helps answer your question some.  

Are Canadian *VP* crews better, on par, or less skilled than other nations?  Sounds like a good question and a good reason to get Fincastle going again!


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Are Canadian *VP* crews better, on par, or less skilled than other nations?  Sounds like a good question and a good reason to get Fincastle going again!



Although the post-ex party will be pretty tame for the Canadian side.  2 drinks for everybody!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Or, just do like we did for DM...leave early and avoid the embarrassment.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Although the post-ex party will be pretty tame for the Canadian side.  2 drinks for everybody!



There’s a waiver for that!


----------



## RDBZ

New Zealand has just approved the purchase of 4 P-8.     https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/new-zealand-spend-2-3b-four-boeing-p-8-poseidon-aircraft-replace-orions


----------



## SeaKingTacco

RDBZ said:
			
		

> New Zealand has just approved the purchase of 4 P-8.     https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/new-zealand-spend-2-3b-four-boeing-p-8-poseidon-aircraft-replace-orions



Maybe we can buy their used P3s....


----------



## FSTO

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Maybe we can buy their used P3s....



Brilliant! Promote that man!!!!


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Maybe we can buy their used P3s....



They've used theirs since the 60s?  At least ours were the last bunch from 1980.   :


----------



## Loachman

That's irrelevant to some governments.

Slap on a new coat of paint and they'll all look the same.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Article with Col Mike Adamson, 14 Wing Commander, on the CP-140M from Skies Magazine, attached as a PDF.

There are a few inaccuracies that must come from the author vice Col Adamson ( a great Officer and Leader; he was my first Sqn Boss).  

- the picture in the article that says "AES Op manoeuvres the EO/IR cameras over Iraq" - he is actually looking at the RADAR & ESM plots.  

- the article says that 404 Sqn has 'former- pilots, navigators and sensor operators...the 404 bunch are all top category, FIC-qualified instructors.  Not sure where the 'former' part came from.

- Davis made the fleet sound like we're 'figuring out how to do our jobs'.   :


----------



## Ping Monkey

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> - the article says that 404 Sqn has 'former- pilots, navigators and sensor operators...the 404 bunch are all top category, FIC-qualified instructors.  Not sure where the 'former' part came from.


Based on the last number of articles I've read that mention the goings-on at 404, it seems the only people the interviewers get to talk to are the DND civilians that comprise the OMS Team in the Thorney Island building.  The authors probably (incorrectly) assume that they are instructors... which obviously couldn't be further from the truth.


----------



## Baz

I saw it before you posted it.

They never get the details right; I wrote an article once for a military journal, and they just used stock photos to accompany it.

To be fair, I didn't read it like he thought you were learning your jobs.  It came across to me that the community was refocusing and taking stock.  The mark of a professional is to be always learning...

I'd rather that than the standard "best xxx in the world" which can be used as a convenient excuse to not do the hard work to get better.  Like anything worth doing, the better you get the harder it is to get even better.

My 2 cents...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

> 404 Long Range Patrol and Training Squadron has instructors—former pilots, navigators, and sensor operators—with a decade or more of experience who “stay abreast of recent developments and are an invaluable asset in keeping our current crews up to speed,” said Adamson



If it was worded this way...



> 404 Long Range Patrol and Training Squadron has top-category instructors and simulator staff (former pilots, navigators, and sensor operators) with a decade or more of experience who “stay abreast of recent developments and are an invaluable asset in keeping our current crews up to speed,” said Adamson



...it would be bang on.

And, both the 404 instructors and Simulator staff are pro's at what they do.  The ability to fly a mission/op area in simulation before burning actual gas is amazingly benficial and hopefully is expanded and improved in the future.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Baz said:
			
		

> I'd rather that than the standard "best xxx in the world" which can be used as a convenient excuse to not do the hard work to get better.  Like anything worth doing, the better you get the harder it is to get even better.
> 
> My 2 cents...



The "best XXX in the world..." stuff is irritating.  IMPACT, it was "one-of-a-kind ISR asset in the Coalition".  That stuff culminated when there was a RCAF GO speaking to the LRP Det in Happyland, who went on to tell us how we were unique in that 'we were the only manned ISR platform out there'.  The speech was given in the HAS we were using as a quasi-hanger, with his back to the door.  Directly behind him on the next ramp was one of the US P-3C AIP or LSRS birds that we saw on IFF, shared the stack with pretty regularly, waved at when our orbits crossed and said "hi" to when we bumped into them a few times at the DFAC.

It was hard to keep a straight face...  

I think the part that made me think "he makes us sound incompetent" was the "we are trying to figure that out..it is a walk/run process".  Maybe the context was mistaken on my part.   :2c:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Combat Camera video:   OP CARIBBE - CP140 Aurora Mission


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The first picture I've seen of Block 4, taken at IMP earlier this week.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The first picture I've seen of Block 4, taken at IMP earlier this week.



Bumpy Greyhound Of Death.


----------



## dapaterson

If it's from IMP, it's months (or years) late...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

;D

It's....different!  I didn't take a look at the proposed new displays etc at the IAT yet...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If it's from IMP, it's months (or years) late...



According to this website, IOC was last December and FOC will be summer 2020.   

But, it also says that Block III replaced the EOIR (it didn't), and it doesn't mention it upgraded the MAD (which it did).  But hey, details aren't important!!   

And hey!  Link 16...that's new (ish), right?


----------



## Baz

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And hey!  Link 16...that's new (ish), right?



At least it should be available before Link-11 expires due to no crypto; I doubt all platforms both within Canada and in NATO will be so fortunate.  My understanding is 11 is already becoming problematic at sea because so few use it.

Of course there is also Mode 5, and ADS-B, and the Mk-54, which all may be late to need.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Baz said:
			
		

> My understanding is 11 is already becoming problematic at sea because so few use it.



Similar issue with it airborne.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

This RAF article highlights the different attributes, challenges and needs of Maritime patrol aircraft and missions.

https://medium.com/raf-caps/maritime-air-power-the-neutral-battleground-572d63f6b3a6?fbclid=IwAR3yM85K0eULvTU97wp4C4tpi1jze009qtQT53ykW2zSlp_0eh7vWxvfyS0


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Another picture (not mine) of 108 at IMP taken recently.  The SDS components show nicely on this one under the pilot window and below/behind the aft observer window.  I can't tell if the silver strip on the fwd part of the MAD boom is something in the fencing or on the aircraft.  

That's a fairly substantial difference in the top antenna for the BLOS compared to the one we had in Happyland for iBLOS.

http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/en/photo-search.page#ipa_assetDetail=%7B53B33504-0B4E-411B-A512-D3437566D5A9%7D

Next to come, if RUMINT is true, are the engine mod's and NP2000 prop's.

Hopefully, they're going to make a slightly bigger Stanley Cup for the longer ONSTAs.   ;D


----------



## dimsum

Or an integrated toilet like in the airliners so people don’t have to take the Cup and Cassette out


----------



## SupersonicMax

EITS: The engine mod is tri-fold:  the engine itself, the controller then the prop.  The level of testing required for each component gets progressively larger (relatively simple for the engine itself - NOAA has done that already, and a complex, high risk test program for the props).  So, you won’t see that tomorrow!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Or an integrated toilet like in the airliners so people don’t have to take the Cup and Cassette out



But everyone loves carrying their "stuff" off the plane after a nice long flight.   :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> EITS: The engine mod is tri-fold:  the engine itself, the controller then the prop.  The level of testing required for each component gets progressively larger (relatively simple for the engine itself - NOAA has done that already, and a complex, high risk test program for the props).  So, you won’t see that tomorrow!



I think if I see it...it will be in pictures long after I'm off the fleet.   ;D

I've heard there is one tail that has been selected for 'testing'...but, honestly, I've not seen or heard anything 'official' yet at all.


----------



## Sub_Guy

So the new props are “on” again?

Last I heard was that they dropped the idea.  I really don’t see a point as the Aurora has 10 years left?  It would take them close to a decade to get the project completed.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Pardon my ignorance in these matters, but could someone explain to me the involvement of the NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, IIRC) in airplane engines?


----------



## SupersonicMax

NOAA operates P-3 with similar engine upgrades.  We can use some of what was already done to certify the engines on our CP140.


----------



## Good2Golf

...and the NOAA P-3s are ‘hurricane-rated’! :nod:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Seen. Thank you gentlemen for enlightening me.


----------



## Rifleman62

Just watched this rerun re NOAA P-3 that almost didn't make it. They were trying a new experiment: low entry into the eye.



> 1. Hurricane Hugo, 1989
> The NOAA Hurricane Hunters, including Weather Underground's Dr. Jeff Masters, were expecting to fly into a 130-mph hurricane in 1989. What they actually flew into was a 185-mph major hurricane with extreme turbulence and gusts nearing 200 mph.
> 
> This P-3 flight penetrated the eyewall 3,500 feet lower than recommended for a hurricane of Hugo's intensity. Intense downdrafts pushed the plane down to 880 feet, took out one engine and nearly took out another engine on the same wing.
> 
> It looked like a Category 5 on the inside of the plane when the crew finally reached Hugo's calm center. Everything that was even remotely loose was tossed across the cabin, landing in piles knee- to waist-deep. A 200-pound life raft was thrown around like a missile, putting a 1-inch dent into a steel handrail.
> 
> Masters wrote in his blog at the time:
> 
> "The cockpit G-meter shows we took five-and-a-half Gs up and three-and-a-half Gs down," continues Lowell, now sounding really concerned. "The P-3 is only rated to plus three and minus two Gs, so we may have some serious structural damage. We'll have to climb as high as we can and find a part of the eyewall to exit through with a minimum of turbulence.
> 
> "Five-and-a-half Gs!" I exclaim, looking at Pete in amazement and trepidation. No hurricane hunter aircraft has ever taken more than three Gs. We are lucky to be alive."
> 
> A "G" is the force of gravity, with positive or up Gs meaning you are being pulled toward the ground, and negative or down Gs being the feeling of weightlessness. The topic of Gs is usually brought up with roller coasters or space launches. Extreme Gs can be deadly to humans and extremely destructive to aircraft.
> 
> It took two additional aircraft and some brave crew members to get the battered plane, one engine down, out of Hugo's eye. Luckily, the team found a weak spot at 7,000 feet in the immense eye wall and returned to Barbados safely.



*Air Crash Investigation Into the Eye of the Storm*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn44PzRF024


----------



## Good2Golf

A pretty big set of cajones on those crews!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> So the new props are “on” again?
> 
> Last I heard was that they dropped the idea.  I really don’t see a point as the Aurora has 10 years left?  It would take them close to a decade to get the project completed.



Last I heard it is proceeding on one tail;  the word was the upgrades would "pay for themselves' in terms of fuel burn rate, etc over the remaining life of the fleet.  But, until I hear about it at Morning Prayers or something...I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> A pretty big set of cajones on those crews!



Definitely...not ideal ditching conditions!!!!


----------



## Sub_Guy

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> NOAA operates P-3 with similar engine upgrades.  We can use some of what was already done to certify the engines on our CP140.



I had a read of what NOAA did to their P3, they did upgrade their engines on their bird, but it wasn’t the NP2000 engine (unless I missed it).  I did find some articles online that would indicate that NASA is seeking to upgrade a P3 with the NP2000.


----------



## SupersonicMax

NP2000 is the propeller.


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> A pretty big set of cajones on those crews!



I would love to see their life insurance premiums.  If they can even get life insurance.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Another Block 4 prototype shot.


----------



## dapaterson

But the important question:  How good is the coffee on board?


----------



## dimsum

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But the important question:  How good is the coffee on board?



Paraphrasing here, but "chewed grounds in an old dirty sock" sounds about right.


----------



## Good2Golf

I see they didn’t go with current conformal/low-profile antenna technology for BLOS.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But the important question:  How good is the coffee on board?



The stuff from the kitchen is _absolutely horrible _IMO.  I either bring 3-in-1s along or use this fella.

Thank god for hot cups!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I see they didn’t go with current conformal/low-profile antenna technology for BLOS.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



I haven't seen anything yet other than pictures, so I'm not sure 'exactly' what is *under the dome*, but I was quite surprised with the size of the prototype compared to the iBLOS fitting.  The size/shape of it made me think "RQ-4"...so I'm expecting a similar size antenna under it (just my WAG, of course).

This picture, there looks like something additional is mounted on the MAD boom, as well as something on additional on the underside of the fuselage, below and slightly forward of the Roundel; it's not very clear and for a second I thought it looked like an additional EOIR ball like the AIP birds have (wishful thinking?).   :dunno:

Should have more info once the 415 types get their hands on 108 and start prepping for the CT.


----------



## Sub_Guy

It would be better if they upgraded the EO/IR camera to something better (instead of another turret).

It would also be nice if they could fully integrate EO/IR similar to what the Winnipeg Police have in Air1.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=faodCovX2iQ

I also think they could have installed a radar antenna aft giving us 360 degree coverage.


----------



## Good2Golf

Looks like the NS*SGOD is set up for aft-mounted DIRCM?

*not-so



			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> It would be better if they upgraded the EO/IR camera to something better (instead of another turret).
> 
> It would also be nice if they could fully integrate EO/IR similar to what the Winnipeg Police have in Air1.
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=faodCovX2iQ
> 
> I also think they could have installed a radar antenna aft giving us 360 degree coverage.



At some point, one would think the OEM would stop supporting small qty ‘legacy’ (aka well past their prime) systems if other operators have moved on to digital systems. ???

Regards
G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> It would be better if they upgraded the EO/IR camera to something better (instead of another turret).
> 
> It would also be nice if they could fully integrate EO/IR similar to what the Winnipeg Police have in Air1.
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=faodCovX2iQ
> 
> I also think they could have installed a radar antenna aft giving us 360 degree coverage.



Agreed on all...but I'll not hold my breath on any of them happening...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> At some point, one would think the OEM would stop supporting small qty ‘legacy’ (aka well past their prime) systems if other operators have moved on to digital systems. ???



This is "sort of" the case on the MX-20.  It received a partial 'upgrade' circa 2015.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Nice video of the flypast from last weekend;  Apple Blossom Festival Parade 2019.

The colors...almost looks more like fall in the Ditch than early summer.


----------



## Ping Monkey

Some details on the Rolls-Royce T56 Series 3.5 engine.  I like these numbers.



> The Series 3.5 upgrade allows T56 engines to operate at greatly reduced temperatures, extending parts life and _improving reliability by 22 per cent_. It is available for installation on T56 engines powering either C-130 or P-3 legacy aircraft.
> The firm claim that the Series 3.5 upgrade will help the Royal Thai Air Force to reduce operational costs due to reduced maintenance requirements and _potential fuel savings exceeding 12 per cent_.



https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/thailand-first-international-customer-for-rolls-royce-t56-upgrades/


----------



## Sub_Guy

Ping Monkey said:
			
		

> Some details on the Rolls-Royce T56 Series 3.5 engine.  I like these numbers.



You know what would be outstanding?  If we shelved this idea and hopped on the P8 train.   Australia, New Zealand, UK, Norway, South Korea and India have all made the switch.  

Oh, but we will have the best P3 on the planet!


----------



## Ping Monkey

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Oh, but we will have the best P3 on the planet!




It already is the best P3 on the planet!  (_Granted, functioning wing pylons would be nice_.) ;D


----------



## TCM621

Ping Monkey said:
			
		

> It already is the best P3 on the planet!  (_Granted, functioning wing pylons would be nice_.) ;D



It's in the works. Whether it will pan out is a different story but Ottawa has done some investigation and at least 1 trial I'm aware of.


----------



## dimsum

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> It's in the works. Whether it will pan out is a different story but Ottawa has done some investigation and at least 1 trial I'm aware of.



Latest I heard (from about 2 months ago) is that it's shelved again.


----------



## TCM621

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Latest I heard (from about 2 months ago) is that it's shelved again.



It's possible, my info is about 6 months old.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Last year (or year before...kinda runs together at this point), they were installed on one tail (118?) in ZX for a while.  Then they took 'em off again.

I think there were some issues from the ASLEP work and if 'stuff lined up still'...something like that.  Either way...I ain't holding my breath.  

I agree with DH;  we should be getting P-8s, keeping the things we like on the '140 and moving them.  Figthers will be a priority...FWSAR is coming...Cyclone just happened (sort of).  I think MPAs are wayyyyyy down the line of priorities.  Some genius is like proposing we scrape them for RPAS...and that someone should be immediately kicked in the crotch.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Some genius is like proposing we scrape them for RPAS...and that someone should be immediately kicked in the crotch.



Considering that RPAS is already given the list of qualified suppliers, I highly doubt they will take the place of the Flying Winnebago anytime soon.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Some genius is like proposing we scrape them for RPAS...and that someone should be immediately kicked in the crotch.



Mixed fleet?

RPAs for domestic surveillance and overland stuff.   

P8 for the good stuff. 

Only a complete retard would suggest that a RPA could replace the P3. How anyone could suggest that and maintain credibility is beyond me.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Considering that RPAS is already given the list of qualified suppliers, I highly doubt they will take the place of the Flying Winnebago anytime soon.



My points to that aren't ones that should be put on here....

The newest name I heard recently was...Frankenstein.  I like it!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Only a complete retard would suggest that a RPA could replace the P3.



Agreed, but I've had that discussion with people before...



> How anyone could suggest that and maintain credibility is beyond me.



That assuming they have any credibility from the MAG perspective to start with...this could include people of various ranks as well who have hours in their logbook... .  There are always people who emphasize "someone always places last on course".  :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

From the CAF FB page:

A Block IV-modified CP-140 Aurora flew for the first time from Halifax to Greenwood, NS as part of an initial flight test assessment under the Aerospace Engineering Test Establishment (AETE). Block IV modifications include beyond-line-of-sight satellite communication, Link 16 Tactical Data Link, and a self-defence system.

During this significant project milestone, personnel from the AETE and 415 Squadron helped verify the safety of the design for flight. Upcoming instrumented flight testing will measure flight characteristics and re-certify the flight and operational envelopes of the Block IV modified aircraft. The aircraft will remain at 14 Wing Greenwood to conduct on-ground testing and training in preparation for operational use of its new capabilities.

https://www.facebook.com/CanadianForces/posts/2799920743568443


----------



## MarkOttawa

More on Block IV CP-140: 



> ...The Aurora Structural Life Extension Project (ASLEP) involves replacing wings and horizontal stabilizers on the aircraft. It will extend the operational life of the CP-140 Aurora fleet to 2030. This project is currently in the implementation phase...
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/cp-140-aurora.html



Odds on a replacement actually entering service by 2030? In 2018 the gov't was saying this for Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft:



> ...
> 
> 2021/2022 Start Options Analysis
> 2023/2024 Start Definition
> 2027/2028 Start Implementation
> 2032/2033 Initial Delivery
> 2037/2038 Final Delivery
> ...
> http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=975



Sure.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Sub_Guy

It is an Interesting time.   

Both MAISR and RPAS will reduce the amount of MMA required to replace the Aurora. 

Hopefully the P8 line is still open when the decision is made.


----------



## dapaterson

Given Boeing's inability to perform QC on their aircraft, maybe that's not what we want.


----------



## CBH99

Agreed.

In addition to the 737Max nonsense we all know about, inspectors have just recently found debris in the engines & fuel tanks of 737Max aircraft that have yet to be delivered -- built & kept in storage until deliveries can resume.

The P8 has had foreign debris found inside fuel tanks, engines, and cabins of newly delivered aircraft (In one case, an empty can of coke was found INSIDE the fuel tank!)  and there have been multiple QC issues with KC-46A.



I also - sincerely - don't know the cost advantages/disadvantages of a P8 compared to a turboprop like the 140.  I'm GUESSING the 140 would be cheaper to fly & maintain?  But I honestly don't know*


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Maybe we should be looking to Japan?  

Re: the question 'will the Aurora still be flying into the 2030s?  Yup.  Block 4 is only on 1 of 14 aircraft at this time and "not in an operational config".  We're already approaching spring 2020.  There is also testing ongoing for an engine mod/prop swap.  Unsure whether it will go fleet-wide...NP200 props is the rumour.


----------



## CBH99

Question for those of you in the aircraft business... would it be cheaper to replace the 140 with a new-production of something similar?  Or go the P8 route?

I'm asking more in terms of routine costs, as that's where the bulk of the money goes.  


I would imagine a turboprop would be cheaper?


----------



## dapaterson

Airframes are (comparatively) easy; sensor and weapon integration is difficult.  Building our own creates schedule, technical and cost risk; buying off someone else's line mitigates those. 

I'm not aware of many other in-production naval focused ISR platforms beyond the P8; and few nations have the coastline Canada has, with the associated implications for required range.  And with Bombardier exiting the commercial aircraft business, I expect there will be less pressure to play "What ISR suite can we put on a C-Series?"


----------



## Good2Golf

Kawasaki P-1.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Kawasaki P-1.



I hope we take a close look at that option...


----------



## DonaldMcL

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I hope we take a close look at that option...



Oh god why?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

BobSlob said:
			
		

> Oh god why?



Well, for starters...I heard there is a George Foreman grill included!!!  And there is a 360 radar, something something yadda yadda.

ONSTA burgers!  steak!  grilled...other stuff!!  



And, I'd rather a P1 over a 295 or 235 or something equally as crappy.


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I would imagine a turboprop would be cheaper?



A turboprop may be cheaper, but props and jets work best for different altitudes and distances.

Basically, props are good for low level, jets are good for high level.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Jet Packs for everyone then!


----------



## CBH99

Dimsum said:
			
		

> A turboprop may be cheaper, but props and jets work best for different altitudes and distances.
> 
> Basically, props are good for low level, jets are good for high level.




Being an MPA, such as the Aurora, what is ideal??  

I imagine low level would be good for hunting subs - something, in my opinion, I think will be a renewed focus in the near future.  (If it isn't already?)

High level, I'm guessing you can monitor a much larger area.


I guess I'm curious about the pros/cons of an aircraft like a CP-140 vs. a P8 for our usual use.


----------



## DonaldMcL

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Being an MPA, such as the Aurora, what is ideal??
> 
> I imagine low level would be good for hunting subs - something, in my opinion, I think will be a renewed focus in the near future.  (If it isn't already?)
> 
> High level, I'm guessing you can monitor a much larger area.
> 
> 
> I guess I'm curious about the pros/cons of an aircraft like a CP-140 vs. a P8 for our usual use.



ASW has changed drastically over the years (obviously). There's, at least IMHO, very little reason to bomb around low level anymore. P8s still can do it, but if you can do everything at 3-5000ft vice 3-500ft, why wouldn't you?

For me it's a crew comfort type of thing, long flights are even longer when you're airsick.


----------



## Baz

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Being an MPA, such as the Aurora, what is ideal??
> 
> I imagine low level would be good for hunting subs - something, in my opinion, I think will be a renewed focus in the near future.  (If it isn't already?)
> 
> High level, I'm guessing you can monitor a much larger area.



The P-8 program is *attempting* to get the both of best using expendable stores.

The weapon (torpedo) is going to be delivered by the High Altitude ASW Weapon Carrier (HAAWC), basically a Mk-50 or Mk-54 with a bomb glide kit.

There are programs for EO, IR, and MAD disposable sonobuoy launch container (SLC) UAVs.  They necessarily mean using smaller, lighter (and cheaper) sensors, but the trade off is you can get a lot closer to the threat if it's disposable.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Right now the only aircraft that meets our needs is the P8.  With a little effort, this information can be found on the DWAN, however the P8 is too pricey so here we are putting lipstick on a pig.  I’m sure the P1 could be added to the list, however it was not on the document I was looking at (to be fair it was a few years ago).  Nearly all other aircraft mentioned in this thread was.  It was also based on a requirement of 10 airframes (I believe), but if we look at the roles MAISR and RPAS will play in the future, then Canada should be able to get away with fewer MPA (CMMA) airframes.  

The ASW game definitely doesn’t need to be flown at low level.  With the use of the Multi-Static Active Coherent system (MACS) you can effectively cover a vast area at a much higher level. This is something the folks on the P8 do very well (MACS = something we can’t do).  Just ask anyone who worked with the USN on the most recent (2019) excursions.

As soon as Norway and the UK get their P8 aircraft up and running I feel Aurora crews will be left in the dust. We have much more in common with those nations than we do with the ones we signed on to develop a MPA with (Germany, Poland, Turkey, France, Spain, Italy and Greece). Basically the "C+" team of ASW warfare.

Once again everyone walks down a certain path and we think we can do it better by taking a different road.


----------



## DonaldMcL

The flyaway cost of the P8 is actually now cheaper than the P1, and we can leverage the American training system much like the Aussies and Brits are doing for the short term. Support no matter where we go in the world as well. 

Not to start a fire, but the recent $2.1 Billion Trudeau asked for FN support over the blockades could have replaced the MPA fleet. We will continue to fly these aircraft until they literally begin to fall out of the sky. It's no longer and if, but a when.

Latest RUMINT has the CP140 flying until 2040, people will die over this decision.


----------



## dimsum

BobSlob said:
			
		

> Latest RUMINT has the CP140 flying until 2040, people will die over this decision.



It may sound dramatic, but I agree.  It'll be a 60-year-old airframe that we ride like a rented mule.


----------



## DonaldMcL

Dimsum said:
			
		

> It may sound dramatic, but I agree.  It'll be a 60-year-old airframe that we ride like a rented mule.



I mean, we've only just been lucky it hasn't happened over the last year and bit.


----------



## GR66

Found this older (2015) article comparing the P-8 and P-1.

https://battle-machines.org/2015/12/06/boeing-p-8a-vs-kawasaki-p-1-the-comparison-of-modern-mpas/

No idea on the reliability of the author or the website, but found it quite interesting.


----------



## Sub_Guy

BobSlob said:
			
		

> I mean, we've only just been lucky it hasn't happened over the last year and bit.



Yes.  Eventually the holes in the cheese will line up.  My last Aurora flight was interesting...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Right now the only aircraft that meets our needs is the P8.  With a little effort, this information can be found on the DWAN, however the P8 is too pricey so here we are putting lipstick on a pig.  I’m sure the P1 could be added to the list, however it was not on the document I was looking at (to be fair it was a few years ago).  Nearly all other aircraft mentioned in this thread was.  It was also based on a requirement of 10 airframes (I believe), but if we look at the roles MAISR and RPAS will play in the future, then Canada should be able to get away with fewer MPA (CMMA) airframes.



10.  10 is not enough; we don't have enough now to meet all the FG/FE/FD demands.  LRP isn't doing any of the flying MAISR will do (we did some in Iraq...), but we don't do it as a matter of routine - IMPACT and OUP were "onsies". .  I don't know the CONOP for RPAs (does anyone?) but...unless we're getting something like RQ-4s...will they really be able to do what a manned MMA/LRPA can?  I say, no.  Heck they can't manage the Wx alone, let alone search/kill stores.

10 is not enough.  It might be what we get, because people don't know how to apply reality to "theory".  10 for FG/FE/FD....simply not enough.

I know the RAF is going to have 9 tails ( I think that was the final number...) but they do things a little different/have different realities that put different demands on their fleet.


----------



## Good2Golf

GR66 said:
			
		

> Found this older (2015) article comparing the P-8 and P-1.
> 
> https://battle-machines.org/2015/12/06/boeing-p-8a-vs-kawasaki-p-1-the-comparison-of-modern-mpas/
> 
> No idea on the reliability of the author or the website, but found it quite interesting.



Definitely interesting. Quad-panel AESA with a baseline the length of the fuselage will make for some very capable ISAR and other MTI modes.  Definitely worth keeping an eye on an aircraft that a nation on the doorstep of China purpose built to hunt and kill subs...

Regards
G2G


----------



## CBH99

GR66 said:
			
		

> Found this older (2015) article comparing the P-8 and P-1.
> 
> https://battle-machines.org/2015/12/06/boeing-p-8a-vs-kawasaki-p-1-the-comparison-of-modern-mpas/
> 
> No idea on the reliability of the author or the website, but found it quite interesting.




That was a good read.  Thanks for posting that


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 10.  10 is not enough; we don't have enough now to meet all the FG/FE/FD demands.  LRP isn't doing any of the flying MAISR will do (we did some in Iraq...), but we don't do it as a matter of routine - IMPACT and OUP were "onsies". .  I don't know the CONOP for RPAs (does anyone?) but...unless we're getting something like RQ-4s...will they really be able to do what a manned MMA/LRPA can?  I say, no.  Heck they can't manage the Wx alone, let alone search/kill stores.
> 
> 10 is not enough.  It might be what we get, because people don't know how to apply reality to "theory".  10 for FG/FE/FD....simply not enough.
> 
> I know the RAF is going to have 9 tails ( I think that was the final number...) but they do things a little different/have different realities that put different demands on their fleet.



Like, for one thing, the UK is about one-third the size of BC?

http://www.bcrobyn.com/2012/12/how-big-is-british-columbia/


----------



## Sub_Guy

I get it, I think we all do.  10 isn’t enough.  Neither are 2 JSS, 4 SSK, or 85 fighters.  The list goes on and on.

If the option is 10 capable aircraft or 15 less capable aircraft, I’d take the 10..


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I get it, I think we all do.  10 isn’t enough.  Neither are 2 JSS, 4 SSK, or 85 fighters.  The list goes on and on.
> 
> If the option is 10 capable aircraft or 15 less capable aircraft, I’d take the 10..



Agreed.  I'm hoping the same (IMO, wrong) thinking doesn't happen that did when the Argus was replaced with the Aurora..."more capable = less number of units required".


----------



## Eye In The Sky

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Like, for one thing, the UK is about one-third the size of BC?
> 
> http://www.bcrobyn.com/2012/12/how-big-is-british-columbia/



Yup, they don't have to spread a small fleet apart by thousands of kilometers.  And like Norway...they're very close to 'the pitch'.


----------



## Dale Denton

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 10.  10 is not enough; we don't have enough now to meet all the FG/FE/FD demands.  LRP isn't doing any of the flying MAISR will do (we did some in Iraq...), but we don't do it as a matter of routine - IMPACT and OUP were "onsies". .  I don't know the CONOP for RPAs (does anyone?) but...unless we're getting something like RQ-4s...will they really be able to do what a manned MMA/LRPA can?  I say, no.  Heck they can't manage the Wx alone, let alone search/kill stores.
> 
> 10 is not enough.  It might be what we get, because people don't know how to apply reality to "theory".  10 for FG/FE/FD....simply not enough.
> 
> I know the RAF is going to have 9 tails ( I think that was the final number...) but they do things a little different/have different realities that put different demands on their fleet.



Perhaps 10 P-8s and 10 RPAs? New MQ-9 Skyguardian looks like it can take some of the P-8s job now:
https://genatomicsasi.com/general-atomics-promotes-un-manned-mpa-mission/
https://www.flightglobal.com/civil-uavs/new-maritime-capability-developed-for-mq-9/118327.article

10 full-time MPA P-8s that can be boosted with 10 RPAs. The 10 RPAs could be siphoned off for over-land use when needed, but have a primary MPA arctic mission.


----------



## Baz

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Perhaps 10 P-8s and 10 RPAs? New MQ-9 Skyguardian looks like it can take some of the P-8s job...
> 
> 10 full-time MPA P-8s that can be boosted with 10 RPAs. The 10 RPAs could be siphoned off for over-land use when needed, but have a primary MPA arctic mission.



The P-8 and the Triton are intended to compliment each other.  Aside from the USN the Australuans have also decided on that option.

Edited to add: the option of mixing manned and unmanned may not actually save as much money as some people think.  You still need as many sensor operators and tacticians, and bandwidth isn't free.  So saying it is ok to have 10 MPAs if we tack on 10 RPAs is probably a non starter.


----------



## MarkOttawa

But see this:

US to ‘pause’ production of Australia’s Triton drones

The title of the latest issue of Australian Foreign Affairs asks, ‘Can we trust America?’ The case of the MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial system would suggest the answer is no.

The 2016 defence white paper named the Triton as one of its capability priorities for the future Australian Defence Force:

    To complement the surveillance capabilities of the [P-8A] Poseidon, the Government will acquire seven high altitude MQ-4C Triton unmanned aircraft from the early 2020s … The Triton is an unarmed, long-range, remotely piloted aircraft that will operate in our maritime environment, providing a persistent maritime patrol capability and undertaking other intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance tasks.

The supporting integrated investment program flagged a cost of $3–4 billion.

In June 2018, the government announced that it would ‘invest $1.4 billion and acquire the first of six Tritons’ (it’s not clear what happened to the seventh). That top-level figure also included $364 million in infrastructure, as well as ‘the necessary ground control systems, support and training required to implement a project of this nature’.

But this wasn’t going to be a straightforward commercial or foreign military sales purchase. The government also announced that ‘as part of this investment Australia will also enter into a $200 million cooperative program with the United States Navy for the development, production and sustainment of the MQ-4C Triton’. It wasn’t very specific on what we would get for our $200 million, but stressed that ‘Australia’s alliance with the US is our most important defence relationship, underpinned by strong cooperation in defence industry and capability development’ and asserted that ‘[t]his cooperative program will strengthen our ability to develop advanced capability and conduct joint military operations’.

In March 2019, the government announced it had approved acquisition of the second aircraft at a cost of ‘around $350 million’.

_So that makes it decidedly awkward that the US Department of Defense budget papers for fiscal year 2021 announced a two-year ‘production pause in FY 2021 and FY 2022’ in the Triton program. The budget documents don’t state what is behind the pause. There are a range of potential factors, including finding funds to help build President Donald Trump’s border wall and to achieve the chimerical goal of a 355-ship fleet (noting that the budget reduces orders for new ships this year_ [emphasis added]).

The pause is unfortunate for Australia for several reasons. Our first Triton should be delivered before the pause takes effect, but overall the goal of initial operational capability in 2023–24 and final operational capability by 2025 look like taking a two-year hit. That’s the best-case future.

It could be worse. The US is much more willing to cancel programs than Australia is. And the wolves pick off the stragglers. Germany left the program earlier this year. The Triton has already suffered a 61% increase in development cost and a 70% increase in acquisition schedule, so with a two-year production pause on top of that plus the cost of restarting production, it’s looking more and more like an easy target for budget predators. There are no guarantees US Navy production will start up again, particularly if shipbuilding continues to need more cash (that last bit might sound familiar to Australian readers). That would leave us with one aircraft, a lot of infrastructure to support aircraft we won’t ever have, and a $200 million hangover.

It could be worse again. There’s some talk of Australia jumping in and filling the production gap by acquiring its remaining aircraft earlier. But this ‘opportunity’ may be a trap. When the production pause occurs, the US Navy will have received 14 of the 65 originally planned aircraft. If the US doesn’t continue the acquisition program, Australia may be on the hook for one-third of the future spiral development costs of a total fleet of around 20 aircraft.

Even worse, the US Navy may well decide it’s not worth operating its rump fleet and cancel everything, leaving Australia in the impossible position of holding six or seven orphan aircraft and the entire future cost of supporting the capability after we’ve gone all in for $3–4 billion. The sunk cost fallacy suggests it could be better to cut our losses and get out now, even if we have spent hundreds of millions already.

...the_ Triton is a very expensive aircraft, more even than the F-35_ [emphasis added]. It may be an unmanned system, but it is more like a traditional manned platform in that its exquisite capability makes it exquisitely expensive, resulting in very small numbers in our inventory. The Iranians managed to shoot down its sibling, the Global Hawk, so the Chinese may well be able to handle a Triton. A fleet of six doesn’t allow for losses, but do we want to stock up on more at a cost of hundreds of millions each?...
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/us-to-pause-production-of-australias-triton-drones/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Article Link with picture

CP140 Aurora 111 takes off for its first test flight since coming off the Block IV upgrade line at the Halifax Stanfield International Airport July 21, 2020.

Image by LS C. Rutherford, AETE Image Data Systems, 4 Wing Cold Lake


----------



## Weinie

The previous version of the Aurora was, from what I have been told, enormously capable. What does the Blk IV add?


----------



## Ping Monkey

Weinie said:
			
		

> The previous version of the Aurora was, from what I have been told, enormously capable. What does the Blk IV add?




Block IV: Upgrade three key features of the fourteen block III configured aircraft: beyond-line-of-sight satellite communication, link 16 datalink (a military tactical data exchange network used by NATO countries), and self defence system.


https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/cp-140-aurora.html


----------



## observor 69

Ping Monkey said:
			
		

> Block IV: Upgrade three key features of the fourteen block III configured aircraft: beyond-line-of-sight satellite communication, link 16 datalink (a military tactical data exchange network used by NATO countries), and self defence system.
> 
> 
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/cp-140-aurora.html



Can you expand on 'self defence systems' ? That sounds active vice passive.


----------



## Ping Monkey

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Can you expand on 'self defence systems' ? That sounds active vice passive.




Most of what you likely want to know is detailed at:
https://www.flightglobal.com/leonardos-miysis-to-protect-canadian-aurora-fleet/126018.article


----------



## daftandbarmy

Ping Monkey said:
			
		

> Most of what you likely want to know is detailed at:
> https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/rcaf-to-acquire-systems-to-protect-cp-140-auroras-from-missiles
> https://www.flightglobal.com/leonardos-miysis-to-protect-canadian-aurora-fleet/126018.article



My first thought was 'whoa, they don't already have something like that?'


----------



## observor 69

Thanks for the links Ping Monkey. Thats why I love this site.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> My first thought was 'whoa, they don't already have something like that?'



It's super to get a SDS after the overland op's are summed up.   8)

There was an initiative to procure a LAIRCM system prior to IMPACT but it never produced fruit on the tree.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It's super to get a SDS after the overland op's are summed up.   8)



It's probably better not to know.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> It's probably better not to know.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:



You know, you're right.  Better to just be able to enjoy that last sip of (hopefully french press) coffee in peace... :nod:


----------



## Ping Monkey

Dimsum said:
			
		

> It's probably better not to know.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:



CP140 SDS is a topic that should have been discussed resolved 20 years ago.

I heard a story from a "Long-time ACSO" (_who will remain nameless_) about a similar situation during Op Apollo:  

Aurora returned to base following a 'routine' patrol of the Gulf.  When the crew arrived back in the TSC, they were welcomed like heroes.  
Lead (American) debriefer: "Man your crew has some balls.  That Iranian F-14 had you guys locked up for over an hour and you boys didn't even flinch.  We got our assets of there just to be safe, but you cowboys stuck around.  Well done!"
Aurora crew: Awkward silence.  "Iranian F-14?..."


----------



## Eye In The Sky

That is  :rofl: and  ullhair: at the same time...


----------



## SupersonicMax

Ping Monkey said:
			
		

> CP140 SDS is a topic that should have been discussed resolved 20 years ago.
> 
> I heard a story from a "Long-time ACSO" (_who will remain nameless_) about a similar situation during Op Apollo:
> 
> Aurora returned to base following a 'routine' patrol of the Gulf.  When the crew arrived back in the TSC, they were welcomed like heroes.
> Lead (American) debriefer: "Man your crew has some balls.  That Iranian F-14 had you guys locked up for over an hour and you boys didn't even flinch.  We got our assets of there just to be safe, but you cowboys stuck around.  Well done!"
> Aurora crew: Awkward silence.  "Iranian F-14?..."



If only the upgrade helped with that...


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> If only the upgrade helped with that...



Yup.

Maybe Block V will resolve the missing capability.


----------



## Ping Monkey

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> If only the upgrade helped with that...




Yes, but the enhanced ESM suite is also a bit more capable.


----------



## Good2Golf

ES helps understand the adversary, but it isn’t EP.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

True, but it was a definite step in the right direction in the "threat rec" "platform/Force protection" aspects.  

Block 3 Pick-Up-Sticks was much better than Block 2.  (anyone who hasn't seen what an ESM display looks like when it goes 'operational'...the 34 second mark in this video is pretty accurate.  Then the *fun* starts).

It's still easier on the head than the Acoustic System, though... ;D  Catchy tune!!


----------



## Ping Monkey

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> True, but it was a definite step in the right direction in the "threat rec" "platform/Force protection" aspects.
> 
> Block 3 Pick-Up-Sticks was much better than Block 2.  (anyone who hasn't seen what an ESM display looks like when it goes 'operational'...the 34 second mark in this video is pretty accurate.  Then the *fun* starts).
> 
> It's still easier on the head than the Acoustic System, though... ;D  Catchy tune!!


I love the Pick-Up-Sticks reference to ESM. I often referred to it that way when I was still a NASO.

Rather than Light-Brite (hilarious BTW), I think a better analogy would be:  

Passive Acoustics = Underwater "Guess Who[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]" [/font]_Be glad you didn't ever operate Aurora's legacy OL-5004 acoustic processor... frustratingly over-complicated monochrome POS._
HELRAS/DICASS = Underwater Whack-a-Mole.
Multistatic Acoustics = Playing 8-32 games of Whack-a-Mole simultaneously.
Although it never gets any public attention, with all the other whiz-bang gadgets on the aircraft; I remain of the opinion that one of the key differences between CP140M and other MPAs is its significantly enhanced acoustic processor.  There's some "proof in the purples" that things are being done more effectively by the RCAF (and JMSDF & ROKN) that aren't yet being leveraged by other MPA operators.

Because Cyclone uses a similar mission suite, I'm looking forward to hearing equally good news once operations mature and Post-Ex/Op data comparisons between CH148 and other MH platforms can be analyzed.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I thought the Lite Brite commercial was too good to pass up!!

My 'acoustic' experience is limited to BPACC;  but I've watched ASOs do the business as Ord or observing a crew as TrgO;  looks like lots of brain cells smashing together.  I've also witnessed...140s gaining contact where...others did not.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SAR North of Iqaluit

This picture shows just how challenging a search and rescue mission can be.

A Royal Canadian Air Force CP140 Aurora, from 14 Wing Greenwood's 405 (Long Range Patrol) Squadron, sighted a missing hunter August 19 after a 24-plus-hour search approximately 95 nautical miles northeast of Frobisher Bay.

The 43-year-old man was reported overdue early August 18. A 14 Wing CC130 Hercules with 413 (Transport and Rescue) Squadron was initially tasked to search around the remote cabin he'd visited, as terrain and poor weather prevented local assets’ immediate assistance and extended the time frame for potential distress. Additional help coordinated by Joint Rescue Coordination Centre Halifax included the Canadian Coast Guard Henry Larsen’s helicopter and, from 103 Squadron, 9 Wing Gander, Cormorant 904 came in for a night search into August 19. A second Hercules transported a relief Cormorant crew from Greenwood, and CASARA also added two spotters to help search from dawn. 

The Aurora was called in to add its sensor search capability and, with the combined effort of a smaller Twin Otter, the hunter was located.

BZ Pathfinders!


----------



## Sub_Guy

We need a better camera and operators who turn the reticle off!  Sorry, just my little pet peeve.  

Seriously though, we do need a better camera.  Colour EON?  

Well done to the crews!


----------



## CBH99

Why turn the reticle off?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

It can cover up "detail(s)".  I like it on my *"gunsight" feed, but your "zoom" lens' (like EON [Narrow]), the benefit is very limited.

* depending on the mission, I'll use EOW or IR as a "gunsight".  eg - maritime surface patrol at 5,000, low light I'll use EOW as a 'wide' angle/SA feed, IR as a middle range 'gunsight' using say, Black Hot and use EON as my "detail" feed.  Just using the black 'dot' on IR, I can keep the 'dot' centered in my reticle / 'drive' the reticle over the black dot if I loose sight of the contact on Narrow.  Very easy way to maintain 'eyes on' the contact.  Combine EON as your "primary" and using IR in a Pic-in-pic setup on your display...pretty efficient way to manage the sensor.

Sort of like that...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> We need a better camera and operators who turn the reticle off!  Sorry, just my little pet peeve.



 :nod:



> Seriously though, we do need a better camera.  Colour EON?



HD colour would be magical!!!  Toss in a Designator!


----------



## SupersonicMax

The crosshairs are useless until you need to generate coordinates or employ a designator.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The crosshairs are useless until you need to generate coordinates or employ a designator.



Not always...on MPA, at least.  _Really_ useful on an IR 'gunsight' with EON as primary in a contact-dense area(PIP in the Black Opal)...just walk the Primary from ctc, to ctc, to ctc...slick.  Or when lookin' thru a slop-layer low level at a stationary/slow panga or something.  Overland, we usually turned if off completely for the whole camera-stack (not always).

Sometimes, it was "operator preference", others times it was L/AES Op or TAC directed as to on/off, requested in PED/IA feedback...it's a function/tool, sometimes helpful...other times, not so much.


----------



## Sub_Guy

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Why turn the reticle off?



I should have been more specific, I used the same setup as ETIS, he summed it up nicely.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Just for clarification...the Aurora uses a WesCam MX-20 EOIR sensor;  it has 3 cameras (feeds).  EOW (Wide), EON (Narrow) and IR.  You can view 1, 2 or 3 of them all at once. 

Good picture of the NASO (dry sensor) station on a CP-140M here:    http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/en/photo-search.page#ipa_assetDetail=%7BF3FC460E-EF6D-493B-85C6-B00A92E5B225%7D

When I'm talking about the Black Opal, that is the black center screen, looks like it has 2 handles on it.  You can set that up so the top right corner has a little PiP set-up;  I liked IR 200 on there with the reticle on for surface surv 'stuff'.  

The Tactical display on the right, you can see that Operator is using the capability to view 'all 3 feeds' on his screen.  An Operator can select his/her Tac Display to show *none/1/2/3* cameras at any time.  It wasn't abnormal on IMPACT missions to have each large screen display one of the cameras each; you'd be able to view/correlate between the 3 cameras (all at different focal lengths on the same area).  Very effective and efficient...

Hope the pictures helps with the earlier explanations...


----------



## armrdsoul77

Exchanging an Aurora for a Poseidon

https://www.skiesmag.com/features/exchanging-an-aurora-for-a-poseidon/


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I know Rod and have been on crew with him;  a 'quiet professional' and all around nice guy.  BZ to him for being part of the P-8 club.  Too bad they didn't use a picture of him in the P-8 (the chair is the first give-away it's a 140).


----------



## Ping Monkey

I love, love, love stories like this!









						Sea Dragon Exercise Tests ASW Skills for Maritime Patrol Aircraft Crews - Seapower
					

Maritime Patrol aircraft and crews from five partner nations gathered at Andersen Air Force Base in Guam to participate in Sea Dragon 2021 Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) exercise. The exercise wrapped up Jan 27. The Sea Dragon series of exercises are...




					seapowermagazine.org
				




"_The Sea Dragon events are graded, and the nation with the highest overall score wins the Dragon Belt award...  This year, Royal Canadian Air Force 407 Long Range Patrol Squadron, which operates the CP-140 Aurora, had the highest total point score, and will bring the coveted Dragon Belt home with them to Canadian Forces Base Comox_..."

BZ 407 Squadron!!


----------



## GR66

Well done!

🍻


----------



## Eye In The Sky

BZ Demons!

(Time to get Fincastle's heart beating again...)


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> BZ Demons!
> 
> (Time to get Fincastle's heart beating again...)


The Comox Officer's Mess PMC is probably having heart palpitations right now after the last time in 2008.


----------



## Ping Monkey

dimsum said:


> The Comox Officer's Mess PMC is probably having heart palpitations right now after the last time in 2008.


Hide the piano!!   🎹🔥🚒


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Gee I wonder if Canada will also pick up German P-3's or even better yet really old French Atlantique 2 (sarcasm mode)








						German Defence Ministry dismisses French offer of pre-loved submarine hunters
					

France's proposed four Atlantique 2 planes don't fit the bill in Germany's quest for an interim maritime-patrol and submarine-hunting capability.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## FSTO

Colin Parkinson said:


> Gee I wonder if Canada will also pick up German P-3's or even better yet really old French Atlantique 2 (sarcasm mode)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German Defence Ministry dismisses French offer of pre-loved submarine hunters
> 
> 
> France's proposed four Atlantique 2 planes don't fit the bill in Germany's quest for an interim maritime-patrol and submarine-hunting capability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com


We've got dibs on the New Zealand P3's already.


----------



## MTShaw

FSTO said:


> We've got dibs on the New Zealand P3's already.


It will likely be a Saab C4I Global Eye Bomardier based plane because it’s Canadian and it’s more sophisticated that P8 which is just a over grown MPA with shitty range and loitering capability.


----------



## dimsum

MTShaw said:


> It will likely be a Saab C4I Global Eye Bomardier based plane because it’s Canadian and it’s more sophisticated that P8 which is just a over grown MPA with shitty range and loitering capability.


If you're referring to the Saab ASW platform, they stopped marketing it in 2018.  









						Saab puts marketing effort for Swordfish maritime plane on hiatus
					

Why is Saab stepping away from its sub-hunting aircraft concept?




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## Kirkhill

Where do High Altitude Pseudo Satellites (HAPS) like the AirBus Zephyrs fit into the spectrum, along with Satellites, Micro-Satellites, HALEs, MALEs, MRPAs and F35s?  And I include the F35 as part of the ISTAR spectrum advisedly.



And is there room for something like this?









						Flight of Icarus: Canadian company proposes multi-role tactical aircraft - Skies Mag
					

Montreal, Quebec-based Icarus Aerospace opens up about its Tactical Air Vehicle platform as it seeks government funding and market traction.




					skiesmag.com


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MTShaw said:


> P8 which is just a over grown MPA with shitty range and loitering capability.



_ah hum_ 




What is an overgrown MPA?  I've been on P-8s...that's not the word I think of when I describe them.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Kirkhill said:


> And is there room for something like this?



No for 'any/all things MPA'...if we're going to take on baby/fake MPAs, I'll take a CASA 235 over some _paper airplane_.  MAISR is already sourced...


----------



## MTShaw

dimsum said:


> If you're referring to the Saab ASW platform, they stopped marketing it in 2018.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saab puts marketing effort for Swordfish maritime plane on hiatus
> 
> 
> Why is Saab stepping away from its sub-hunting aircraft concept?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com



Not that one, this one


----------



## Weinie

That.


----------



## Kirkhill

Eye In The Sky said:


> No for 'any/all things MPA'...if we're going to take on baby/fake MPAs, I'll take a CASA 235 over some _paper airplane_.  MAISR is already sourced...




Seen.

Just saying, in a world of overlapping capabilities and platforms, manned and unmanned, it must be getting harder to justify any particular part of the spectrum as being critical.  Redundancy is a great thing to have in any system.  Unless it is your job.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Just me (waving from the foul-smelling tactical level ) perhaps, but...with MAISR and (hopefully...someday....) RPAS, this should allow our small LRP fleet to divorce itself from future overland 'stuff' like OUP/IMPACT and work the battlespace it is intented for.

That TAV might have a use...but not in the RCAF (as I see it, but I consider myself a little scope-locked if I am honest) and not in MAG.


----------



## CBH99

MTShaw said:


> It will likely be a Saab C4I Global Eye Bomardier based plane because it’s Canadian and it’s more sophisticated that P8 which is just a over grown MPA with shitty range and loitering capability.


I don't have any experience in the MPA world, but a few folks on here do.  Personally, I haven't heard anything but good things about the P-8 thus far?  Seems like a Boeing project that - compared to many of their others - went fairly smoothly, with satisfied operators?

If Bombardier actually took the initiative on ANYTHING, they could have produced an AWACs or MPA variant of one of their aircraft, like the Swedes did with the Swordfish.  

Replace the Auroras with an aircraft manufactured in Canada (once verified it can meet the military's requirements, if it could.)  Great optics for a political party, actually helps support Canadian jobs, it's in Quebec, and there is very much a market for smaller & more affordable, yet sophisticated aircraft of that type, globally.  Even if they only got a few orders a year or so, it's still more planes being built and more money coming into the country.


Ofcourse, that would require Bombardier to take the initiative & some bold steps.  Sooooooo...


----------



## Ping Monkey

Or, while waiting for an MPA replacement, just add maritime requirements & capability into the (soon-ish) expected RPA.  Perhaps one that is already performing integration exercises with the USN and allies?









						Unmanned aerial vehicle SeaGuardian operates with naval assets - Naval News
					

The U.S. Navy demonstrated the successful integration of an unmanned maritime surveillance aircraft system with manned capabilities during the Unmanned Systems Integrated Battle Problem 21 (UxS IBP 21) off the coast of San Diego, April 21.




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ping Monkey said:


> Or, while waiting for an MPA replacement, just add maritime requirements & capability into the (soon-ish) expected RPA. Perhaps one that is already performing integration exercises with the USN and allies?



Wait...aren't we supposed to wait for the system to be outdated before we procure/employ it?  Like Link 16?


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99 said:


> ...Replace the Auroras with an aircraft manufactured in Canada (once verified it can meet the military's requirements, if it could.)  Great optics for a political party, actually helps support Canadian jobs, it's in Quebec, and there is very much a market for smaller & more affordable, yet sophisticated aircraft of that type, globally.  Even if they only got a few orders a year or so, it's still more planes being built and more money coming into the country.
> 
> 
> Ofcourse, that would require Bombardier to take the initiative & some bold steps.  Sooooooo...


...or...de Havilland?  🤔


----------



## Kirkhill

Eye In The Sky said:


> Wait...aren't we supposed to wait for the system to be outdated before we procure/employ it?  Like Link 16?



Thanks for the reminder.  Redundancy is not a Canadian concept.


----------



## MTShaw

CBH99 said:


> I don't have any experience in the MPA world, but a few folks on here do.  Personally, I haven't heard anything but good things about the P-8 thus far?  Seems like a Boeing project that - compared to many of their others - went fairly smoothly, with satisfied operators?
> 
> If Bombardier actually took the initiative on ANYTHING, they could have produced an AWACs or MPA variant of one of their aircraft, like the Swedes did with the Swordfish.
> 
> Replace the Auroras with an aircraft manufactured in Canada (once verified it can meet the military's requirements, if it could.)  Great optics for a political party, actually helps support Canadian jobs, it's in Quebec, and there is very much a market for smaller & more affordable, yet sophisticated aircraft of that type, globally.  Even if they only got a few orders a year or so, it's still more planes being built and more money coming into the country.
> 
> 
> Ofcourse, that would require Bombardier to take the initiative & some bold steps.  Sooooooo...


They are in use with Swedes and have been proposed to the Fins through their HX program. Also


----------



## dimsum

MTShaw said:


> Not that one, this one


That is an AEW&C (AWACS) platform.  The Aurora was never (and is not) that. 

That has not been a CAF capability since...ever.


----------



## CBH99

I was under the impression - quite possibly in error - that Saab initially developed the concept with their sensor & EW package, but that Bombardier came onboard as the project-lead due to them manufacturing the aircraft, and knowing how to implement/install it into their airframe easier than the Swedes could have done without the expertise from the manufacturer.

I could very well be wrong.  I don't recall Bombardier ever taking the self-initiative to develop a MPA/ISR/EW suite, or militarize, any of their small business jet models.


----------



## dapaterson

There are CAF aircrew flying NATO AWACS.


----------



## lenaitch

dapaterson said:


> There are CAF aircrew flying NATO AWACS.



I thought we dropped out of that.  Did we drop back in?


----------



## dapaterson




----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

CBH99 said:


> I could very well be wrong.  I don't recall Bombardier ever taking the self-initiative to develop a MPA/ISR/EW suite, or militarize, any of their small business jet models.




Maybe not their business jets, but in the early to mid eighties, they did propose to the government to build secondary MPA's using their then CL-415 water bomber, as replacements for the soon to be retired Trackers. I even have a model of it somewhere in a box. It was given to me when I inspected the Canadair Air cadet Corps.

The loss of the Trackers, even though they were not the ASW beast they once were when they retired, greatly overburdened the Aurora's. The Tackers were doing good work in Sovpats, Fishpats, pollution patrols and generally showing the flag around the East coast. A replacement would have been nice and saved a lot of extra work from the Aurora's.


----------



## dimsum

lenaitch said:


> I thought we dropped out of that.  Did we drop back in?








						Canada rejoins NATO Airborne Warning and Control System program - Canada.ca
					

The Government is committed to both the security and safety of Canadians and the protection of their rights and freedoms.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Maybe not their business jets, but in the early to mid eighties, they did propose to the government to build secondary MPA's using their then CL-415 water bomber, as replacements for the soon to be retired Trackers. I even have a model of it somewhere in a box. It was given to me when I inspected the Canadair Air cadet Corps.
> 
> The loss of the Trackers, even though they were not the ASW beast they once were when they retired, greatly overburdened the Aurora's. The Tackers were doing good work in Sovpats, Fishpats, pollution patrols and generally showing the flag around the East coast. A replacement would have been nice and saved a lot of extra work from the Aurora's.


Viking could still fill that gap with the CL-515, which might be a good supplement to the Auroras, but I suspect the RCAF will fear the government would use that buy as an excuse not to replace the Auroras with an equal capable aircraft.  Maritime Mission | Viking's Aerial Firefighter


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:


> There are CAF aircrew flying NATO AWACS.



Don't forget our AEC, AC Ops and ATIS Techs...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

There's an article in the 05 Apr 2021 edition of The Aurora about Block 4, focused on tech trg @ 404, but talks some in general, as well.  If you look closely at the picture on the cover page, you can partially see some of the new displays in the upper "tac rail" section.

Link to PDF

Here's a good, recent picture of a Block 4 aircraft, shared from the CP-140 FB group.  "Test team from AETE and crew members from 415 with the new Blk IV Aurora, AC 111, that just completed flight science testing at CFB Greenwood" April 20221


----------



## armrdsoul77

Watch A P-3 Submarine Hunter's Sonobuoy Dramatically Transform Once In The Water


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Funny I just saw this while watching this movie. occasionally very good and with some silly bits


----------



## Eye In The Sky

"Maybe something in the trace...."

Ya..._CPA_.  Not that anyone cares about that.  😁


----------



## Eye In The Sky

armrdsoul77 said:


> Watch A P-3 Submarine Hunter's Sonobuoy Dramatically Transform Once In The Water
> View attachment 67401



A neat video of an older search store...


----------



## Ping Monkey

Eye In The Sky said:


> A neat video of an older search store...


Actually, that SSQ-101 ADAR is one of the most modern (_and effective_) sonobuoys available right now.  P-8A continues to employ it exclusively for Enhanced Multistatic reception.  A marvel of mechanical engineering and incredibly expensive...
That video stirred a small hornets nest when it hit youtube a few years ago.  The buoy's array geometry was rather 'sensitive'.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Alright...so someone ( think it was an ASO, TBH) mislead me!  (NASOs....demonstrating what NASO means)

Wait...how do I know that YOU know what you're talking about?   😁


----------



## Ping Monkey

Eye In The Sky said:


> Alright...so someone ( think it was an ASO, TBH) mislead me!  (NASOs....demonstrating what NASO means)


LOL.  You can impress your friends with your new-found knowledge of USN stock sonobuoys.  A "Cliff Claven" moment for the crew room!




Eye In The Sky said:


> Wait...how do I know that YOU know what you're talking about?   😁


You're going to have to trust me on this one.


----------



## armrdsoul77

Article about Aurora upgrades and various roles it performs from Spring 2021.
Canadian Military Journal Vol. 21, No. 2


----------



## Eye In The Sky

A great article by an exceptionally knowledgeable Officer;  and recent CO of 415.


----------



## calculus

armrdsoul77 said:


> Article about Aurora upgrades and various roles it performs from Spring 2021.
> View attachment 67635Canadian Military Journal Vol. 21, No. 2



Great article. First time I've read of a potential engine upgrade. Maybe this will be Canada's B52, and will fly for 100 years.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Think of it more as a prop upgrade with a few necessary engines ones to enable the first...


----------



## armrdsoul77

Eye In The Sky said:


> Think of it more as a prop upgrade with a few necessary engines ones to enable the first...


From thisTo this


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I'm not 100% sure, but initially the talk was NP2000s.


----------



## dimsum

Another win for 407 Sqn on EX SEA DRAGON 2022






						redirect
					






					rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca


----------



## Good2Golf

BZ to the crew!


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> BZ to the crew!


I noticed that the 19 Wing PAFFO thoughtfully left in all the “track changes“ in the news release….


----------



## rnkelly

SeaKingTacco said:


> I noticed that the 19 Wing PAFFO thoughtfully left in all the “track changes“ in the news release….


Noticed that too, at least they deleted comments I guess.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> I noticed that the 19 Wing PAFFO thoughtfully left in all the “track changes“ in the news release….


Apparently staff duties isn’t in the PA trg curriculum… 🤦🏻


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> Apparently staff duties isn’t in the PA trg curriculum… 🤦🏻


Allegedly, the error was made at levels of reality well above 19 Wing.

All that said- well done Demons!


----------



## armrdsoul77

__ https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=4815458148547736&id=872300329530224


----------



## Eye In The Sky

There are no "405 Sqn" Blk 4s, yet, for the record.  

Cold Weather Testing






						Facebook
					






					www.facebook.com


----------



## calculus

More on the Block 4:






						First operational flight for Royal Canadian Air Force  Block IV CP-140 Aurora
					

The first operational flight of a  Royal Canadian Air Force  Block IV CP-140 Aurora was completed in February out of 14 Wing Greenwood to exercise upgraded capabilities and start full aircrew training




					airrecognition.com


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Block 4 is not operational yet, and Conversion Training didn’t “start in February”.  I’m not even sure what “full aircrew training” is?


----------



## SupersonicMax

Eye In The Sky said:


> Block 4 is not operational yet, and Conversion Training didn’t “start in February”.  I’m not even sure what “full aircrew training” is?


Block IV is now allowed to conduct broader FG and FE through a flight permit.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

But it still hasn’t flown an operational mission…


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Article today from The Aurora News Facebook page;  this highlights Blk 4 testing and development fairly well. 

415 (Long Range Patrol Force Development) Squadron recently tested a Block 4 CP140 Aurora through a series of cold weather scenarios, spending a week in February in Yellowknife.

Skywatchers may have noticed some CP140 aircraft have a slightly different look to them. To those familiar with the Aurora, the usually unmistakable sleek profile and long MAD boom protruding from the rear of the aircraft now has an additional large, dome on top of its fuselage. This “dome” is a telltale sign you are seeing is the newly-upgraded Block 4 Aurora.

The CP140 has been going through an Aurora Incremental Modernization Project for many years. This project was divided into four stages, and is now entering the last and final stage.

Once testing was completed on the aerodynamics of the new addition to the airframe, crews began flying the aircraft for pilot training only. In order to be able to use the new mission systems in the back end, further testing was required. The testing for the new systems was broken down into stages and, in February, 14 Wing Greenwood hit a major milestone in the testing process by receiving the Special Purpose Flight Permit (SPFP) to operate the aircraft with mission systems turned on.

Operational Test and Evaluation (OTE) [sic] on the Aurora is normally carried out by both 415 (Long Range Patrol Force Development) Squadron and the 434 Squadron Long Range Patrol Test and Evaluation Flight which resides at 14 Wing. The first stage of testing to get the new mission systems operational involved ensuring all previous aircraft capability was maintained. In order to expedite the testing of legacy systems, the entire long range patrol fleet pitched in, including numerous external stakeholders. The goal was to complete initial testing as soon as possible so the fleet could obtain the SPFP to operate the aircraft within the full range of mission sets it is meant to carry out. 405 (Long Range Patrol) Squadron provided an entire test crew, while 14 Operations Support Squadron provided all the required pre- and post-test support.

Thanks to many long days and hard work by all, the fleet recently obtained the required permit. Though crews are now operating the Block 4 Aurora, further testing will continue over the coming months and years to ensure the full capabilities of the new systems are realized. The next phase of testing, expected to be done by the end of April, will clear the Block 4 Aurora for operational deployments.

Included in that testing is operating the systems in a cold weather environment. The 415 crew, with augmentation from 434, recently returned from Yellowknife. During their time there, the crew braved extreme cold temperatures, sometimes dipping well below -40°C with the wind chill. Though the days were long and sunlight was limited, the testing was successful and all members returned (with all their fingers and toes accounted for).

Though future upgrades are planned for some systems on the Aurora, the Block 4 is the final step in what has been a long upgrade process. With the new capabilities the Block 4 Aurora brings to the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Aurora will be a leading asset amongst maritime patrol aircraft well into the future.


----------



## SupersonicMax

SPFP stands for SPECIFIC Purpose Flight Permit, not Special…


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The staff at Aurora News are civies;  I’m not sure who proofs their articles, but generally they are pretty good.  This one has enough accurate details that it’s safe to say someone from 10 Hgr Annex had some input.

Special, specific.   Ask 3 people at the Sqn what AIMS-ISR stands for.   If you get an answers I bet none of them are the same.  But everyone knows what it does, some still know how to use it.  😬


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Now, the RCAF can say Block 4 has flown operational missions...Front Page story.  It's been interesting to see this aircraft transition.  I started on Block 2, the differences are pretty amazing.  



			http://auroranewspaper.com/pdf/2022/4320news.pdf


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eye In The Sky said:


> Now, the RCAF can say Block 4 has flown operational missions...Front Page story.  It's been interesting to see this aircraft transition.  I started on Block 2, the differences are pretty amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> http://auroranewspaper.com/pdf/2022/4320news.pdf



And it looks like the Chinese are pushy customers:

Canada alarmed as Chinese fighter pilots ‘buzz’ Canadian planes over international waters​
Multiple sources in the Canadian Forces and the federal government tell Global News that Chinese jets are repeatedly “buzzing” a Canadian surveillance plane that is part of a United Nations mission over international waters.

Those jets are frequently flying as close as 20 to 100 feet from the Canadian plane, sources say — so close that Canadian pilots can make eye contact with the Chinese pilots, and sometimes see them raising their middle fingers. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

“(That distance is) scary close at those high speeds, and it could lead to disaster in a crash,” said Charles Burton, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute in Ottawa.









						Canada alarmed as Chinese fighter pilots ‘buzz’ Canadian planes over international waters - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Multiple sources say Chinese fighter jets are repeatedly flying extremely close to Canadian intelligence planes over international waters, raising fears of a mid-air collision.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## Ping Monkey

daftandbarmy said:


> ... so close that Canadian pilots can make eye contact with the Chinese pilots, and sometimes see them raising their middle fingers.



The only suitable response.



** EDIT:  A 'Pressed Ham' in the Observer window would also be appropriate.  🍑


----------



## Eye In The Sky

This story today about the buzzing isn’t anything new…I was on this crew in 2018.  



			https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4953093
		


Senior fellow what’s your name.  Could lead to disaster in a crash eh.   Why do they talk to these people?


----------



## armrdsoul77

daftandbarmy said:


> Canada alarmed as Chinese fighter pilots ‘buzz’ Canadian planes over international waters


Reminded me of the us navy p3 that collided with chinese fighter jet and had to land on chinese island.
Hainan Island incident - Wikipedia


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The way Flynn describes it isn’t what I would call accurate either.   Terrified?  Lumbering?

🙄


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> The way Flynn describes it isn’t what I would call accurate either.   Terrified?  Lumbering?
> 
> 🙄



Well _of course_ he'd say that the Aurora was "lumbering" and "not manoeuvrable"...



> Billie Flynn, a retired squadron commander for the Royal Canadian Air Force and former F-35 fighter jet test pilot


----------



## Ping Monkey

dimsum said:


> Well _of course_ he'd say that the Aurora was "lumbering" and "not manoeuvrable"...



If that's the case, perhaps DFS should have us affix appropriate warning placards on the wingtips & fuselage.


----------



## dapaterson

I think that needs a seven hour, cannot skip through, DLN course that only runs on Internet Explorer, requires Flash, must be recertified annually, is a promotion prerequisite, that crashes before completing the final exam, requiring you to restart.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I vote for everyone who thinks the SGOD is "lumbering" be made to do some 60 & 2s at the sono rack, SS 4/5 at 300' holding a DICASS and without any "*crew*, *maneuvering" *calls.  After that....up to the Tac rail for some MAD tracking...

😁


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:


> I think that needs a seven hour, cannot skip through, DLN course that only runs on Internet Explorer, requires Flash, must be recertified annually, is a promotion prerequisite, that crashes before completing the final exam, requiring you to restart.



We call that "DRTSET trg"...


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> I think that needs a seven hour, cannot skip through, DLN course that only runs on Internet Explorer, requires Flash, must be recertified annually, is a promotion prerequisite, that crashes before completing the final exam, requiring you to restart.


Do you work for Shared Services Canada? 🤔


----------



## dapaterson

More of an ADM IM vibe, or possibly contractor developed content where technology was specified in the contracting vehicle originally written in 2007 but never updated, and where the departmental OPI still has someone print out all their emails so they can hand write replies.


----------



## armrdsoul77

Some photos of the block 4 Aurora I took at this years Cold Lake airshow. New hump and bumps on it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Did you see inside?


----------



## MTShaw

Eye In The Sky said:


> Did you see inside?


No. Did you see Inside recently?

My research was based on a lot of wiki surfing and the following document that documents the parts upgrades over time.





__





						CP-140 Aurora
					





					jproc.ca
				




It probably looks pretty janky inside because the plane was not around those systems.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MTShaw said:


> No. Did you see Inside recently?



Yes?  Flew a few times last week, even scheduled for a B IV COREX this week, B0630/T0830/5.0 this week…but not on Friday thankfully! 😁



MTShaw said:


> My research was based on a lot of wiki surfing and the following document that documents the parts upgrades over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CP-140 Aurora
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jproc.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It probably looks pretty janky inside because the plane was not around those systems.



Ya the tactical consoles are very different, some changes in the flight deck.  Galley and bathroom likely no change.  The ‘79 station wagon finishes remain, thankfully.  

(My comment above was related to the poster who took pictures at the air show; the ladder is down and a line up is there so people were doing walk-thru’s with the mission systems turned off).


----------



## armrdsoul77

Eye In The Sky said:


> Did you see inside?


No I didn't see inside(too impatient to wait in line).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

A picture of 113 at IMP last from Sept;  she was in for  B IV mod and went thru the normal RTS (Release to service) and PAT&E (Production Acceptance Testing and Evaluation) events.  A few people might notice the new bumps on the radome...






						Facebook
					






					www.facebook.com


----------



## Eye In The Sky

A decent article on Block IV and the amount of work and testing that goes into getting aircraft "back on the ramp" after upgrades, Third Line Inspection and Repair (TLIR) including the RTS (release to service) testing and Production Acceptance Testing and Evaluation(PAT&E) processes that happen once IMP's work is done...Page 6 of this weeks Aurora Newspaper edition.





__





						Loading...
					





					www.auroranewspaper.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Major Andy Holden, 407 Long Range Patrol Squadron | When Major Andy Holden, formerly with the UK’s Royal Air Force, received news that the Nimrod MRA4s submarine hunter program had been cancelled, he was... | By Canadian Armed Forces | Facebook
					

2.5K views, 140 likes, 18 loves, 12 comments, 12 shares, Facebook Watch Videos from Canadian Armed Forces: When Major Andy Holden, formerly with the UK’s Royal Air Force, received news that the...




					fb.watch


----------



## Eye In The Sky

BZ Andy.


----------

