# Dash 8s as patrol aircraft?



## Hawker (13 Jan 2005)

Saw this online in the Saskatoon paper:
Bombardier Aerospace has sold three Q300 turboprops to a Toronto-based aerospace services company that will modify the aircraft and resell them to the Swedish Coast Guard for maritime surveillance. Field Aviation Co. of Toronto is buying the aircraft and converting them under an $80-million US contract by the Swedish Coast Guard for its next-generation fisheries and environmental surveillance system.
(http://www.canada.com/saskatoon/starphoenix/news/business/story.html?id=3b7dd19d-636a-44a2-aa20-de8c1aa59557)

Would this be a fairly reasonable/cost effective alternative/suppliment to the Auroras?


----------



## sgt_mandal (13 Jan 2005)

You shuold post a link whenever you reffer from another website.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 Jan 2005)

It would seem much more cost-effective to monitor illegal fishing, boats dumping oil, etc. with the Q-series fit with a Wescam skyball gimbal than with sea-based Canadian Navy Assets.

Specifically, I'd like to see a mix from low-to-high of Predator-B to Q-series to Aurora to Sea Asset for our coastal patrol structure.   

The system would be based on using the cheapest asset possible (UAV) to cover inshore areas, the Q-series to cover the primary sealanes with the Auroras on standby to observe, track and record any vessel or contact that has been identified as suspicious and bring in any sea assets it feels are necessary based on that observation. 

JMHO,



Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Jan 2005)

Ummmm Blackshirt those _seabased Canadian Navy _ assets provide a deterence and a presence in the Fishing Zones 24 hrs a day 7 days a week when needed. They provide a base of operations for DFO/RCMP/Naval Boarding Parties and if something goes wrong they can provide SAR and a casualty handling facility


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 Jan 2005)

My argument is not that we need fewer sea-based assets, just that constant aerial surveillance by a variety of platforms would act as a significant force multiplier making our sea-based assets that much more effective.   There is not doubt it is the sea-based assets that have to do the dirty work.   The additional airborne assets would simply provide them with a better set of eyes and ears to do their job.



Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Jan 2005)

> My argument is not that we need fewer sea-based assets, just that constant aerial surveillance by a variety of platforms would act as a significant force multiplier making our sea-based assets that much more effective.  There is not doubt it is the sea-based assets that have to do the dirty work.  The additional airborne assets would simply provide them with a better set of eyes and ears to do their job.






> *It would seem much more cost-effective to monitor illegal fishing, boats dumping oil, etc. with the Q-series fit with a Wescam skyball gimbal than with sea-based Canadian Navy Assets*.



That statement says otherwise.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jan 2005)

Ok, i want to answer the orinal topic if thats ok with you guys.

I fly in the DASH-8 right now.....so we all know where i get my opinion on the subject.

It is a very nice plane to be flying in ( from a GIB perspective).  The APS-504 is a very capable and reliable radar system. IMHO, it could be used in the MPA role, albeit in a short range one.  The problem lies in where our air bases are located.  When we go up in the CT-142 we get about 4 hours endurance, where the CP-140 gets 14 !! See what i'm getting at ?  When we had the tracker, we also had CFB summerside to operate from so we did not have to go that far but now on the atlantic, greenwood is the only site the military has.  The DASH-8 simply does not have the range required.

The aircraft as it is now, has a max T/O weight of 34500 lbs. Our total zero-fuel weight is 27900 lbs. Add 6500 lbs fuel for a total of 34400 lbs.  Do you see any room for weapons, more fuel and the additional gear the would be required for the MPA role ?? Even if you only want to concentrate on the patrol aspects........


----------



## Mortar guy (13 Jan 2005)

aesop081,

With considerable respect for your obviously extensive knowledge of the Dash 8, may I just point one thing out: the CT-142 is based on the oldest version of the Dash 8 IIRC while the Q series (-100/-200/-300/-400) have some improvements over the pre-1996 Dash 8s (see link: http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp) Wouldn't this mean that newer Dash 8s have a greater payload and therefore would be better suited to the MPA role? Here's a proposal for a MP version of the Dash 8: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/th1-bcms.htm. Please feel free to tell me to shut up as I am just an infanteer with an opinion and not an expert!  ;D

MG


----------



## Inch (13 Jan 2005)

I think you may be on to something MG. The Q400 for example has a range of 1362nm at 360kts. It would probably decrease though since MPA's tend to fly around at 500-1000ft over the water. Jet engines are more efficient at altitude so you're going to burn more fuel for less range. On the flip side, the Q400 has a payload of just over 19,000 lbs with an AUW of 64,500lbs. We could easily modify or add fuel tanks to make up the difference since we wouldn't need to be able to haul around 70 pax.

You're still not going to get 14hrs endurance out of it, but there isn't much out there other than the Auroras (P3 Orions) and maybe the Nimrods that can get that kind of endurance. In fact, the Auroras shut down an engine in order to stay out as long as they do.

Oh yeah, aesop, we do still have a runway in Shearwater, it's even got a PAR on it!


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jan 2005)

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> aesop081,
> 
> With considerable respect for your obviously extensive knowledge of the Dash 8, may I just point one thing out: the CT-142 is based on the oldest version of the Dash 8 IIRC while the Q series (-100/-200/-300/-400) have some improvements over the pre-1996 Dash 8s (see link: http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp) Wouldn't this mean that newer Dash 8s have a greater payload and therefore would be better suited to the MPA role? Here's a proposal for a MP version of the Dash 8: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/th1-bcms.htm. Please feel free to tell me to shut up as I am just an infanteer with an opinion and not an expert!   ;D
> 
> MG



I had seen this proposal before and although it seemed interesting at the time, it still does not solve the fact that the newer versions still have short legs at , IMHO, this is a serious drawback, given our geography. Unless we suddenly come up with new bases to station these planes, transit times would take away much of the dash-8's limited endurance. Remember that the -8 was designed for short range passenger transport, not MP. If you look at a VNC of the atlantic, its a somewhat long way from greenwood to operational patrol area ELK, not leaving much for the -8 if you want any sort of useful loiter time. Don't forget that we also have to use MPA to patrol the north. Maybe if we simply want an aicraft that can fly around and look, i suppose it could be done but i see the design as too limited to become a true MPA ( a mini-aurora) with all the systems (FLIR, MAD, ESM, Sonar,) and crew required. As it is now, we are pretty tight in there with a crew of 8 and the only sensor we have is the APS-504 radar. IMHO, the future of maritime air ops is in the use of UAVs for near-shore surveillance and long-range MPA for off-shore tracking , identification and prosecution.   The current CP-140 is now undergoing AIMP, but this modernisation must go further and a replacement should be found sooner rather that later.

EDIT : Inch, i wasn't aware that the runway still had PAR, i should look in my flips i guess.


----------



## Garbageman (13 Jan 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Unless we suddenly come up with new bases to station these planes, transit times would take away much of the dash-8's limited endurance.




GANDER?


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jan 2005)

And do you see the government putting forward the money to expand the facilities there ?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 Jan 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> That statement says otherwise.



No it doesn't.   It states that for surveillance purposes airborne assets cover a lot more sea for the buck.   It does not negate the fact you still need sea assets to interdict any contacts that have been determined to require interception and possible boarding.



Matthew.


----------



## Garbageman (13 Jan 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> And do you see the government putting forward the money to expand the facilities there ?



Quite simply, no.   The same way that I don't see them putting forward money to purchase new MP aircraft in the first place when we have dozens of other priorities.   But it would seem a logical solution if we were to ever procure more aircraft.   Put some of them in Greenwood, some in Gander, and hell, some in Sydney if possible.   412 Sqn's operation out of civy facilities in Ottawa and 443 Sqn at Pat Bay are prime examples of this kind of structure (provided the sqn is kept relatively small).


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jan 2005)

Garbageman said:
			
		

> Quite simply, no.   The same way that I don't see them putting forward money to purchase new MP aircraft in the first place when we have dozens of other priorities.   But it would seem a logical solution if we were to ever procure more aircraft.   Put some of them in Greenwood, some in Gander, and hell, some in Sydney if possible.   412 Sqn's operation out of civy facilities in Ottawa and 443 Sqn at Pat Bay are prime examples of this kind of structure (provided the sqn is kept relatively small).



True enough.


----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Jan 2005)

What are the specs for the Canadianized FW SAR contenders, and can any of them be configured for Canadian MP. I understand the Brazilian model has a patrol variant, but operating conditions in the great white north are a little different than Brazil. 

One more thing, can the FW SAR's under consideration be fitted for AAR? Cheers.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jan 2005)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> What are the specs for the Canadianized FW SAR contenders, and can any of them be configured for Canadian MP. I understand the Brazilian model has a patrol variant, but operating conditions in the great white north are a little different than Brazil.
> 
> One more thing, can the FW SAR's under consideration be fitted for AAR? Cheers.



Do you mean  "can they be configured as tankers" or "can they be configured to be air-refuelable"


----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Jan 2005)

Sorry, the latter.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jan 2005)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> Sorry, the latter.



I would not see that as being a problem.  We use the "probe and drogue" system of air refueling so it is not a complicated thing to make whatever plateform the gov selects capable of AAR with our new CC-150 tankers or our current tanker-capable CC-130


----------



## Zoomie (14 Jan 2005)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> What are the specs for the Canadianized FW SAR contenders, and can any of them be configured for Canadian MP. I understand the Brazilian model has a patrol variant



The CASA does indeed have an MP variant...  Let's leave it at that...

The FWSAR aircraft will not be configured for AAR nor will it conduct any other role apart from transport and RESCUE (little T, big R).  The aircraft will be painted  bright yellow with red "RESCUE" on the side, so don't expect any tactical roles (ie para or TAL).


----------



## aesop081 (14 Jan 2005)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> The CASA does indeed have an MP variant...   Let's leave it at that...
> 
> The FWSAR aircraft will not be configured for AAR nor will it conduct any other role apart from transport and RESCUE (little T, big R).   The aircraft will be painted   bright yellow with red "RESCUE" on the side, so don't expect any tactical roles (ie para or TAL).



My intent was never  to suggest that the new FWSAR A/C should be used in other roles, i was mearly stating that making it capable of refueling in the air isn't technicaly difficult.  By while we are on it, why not make it capable of this ?


----------



## Inch (14 Jan 2005)

I don't see AAR as a necessity, especially on an aircraft that's never going to deploy nor fly to Europe. I would hazard a guess that in 99% of the instances, it'd be easier and cheaper to land at some airfield to get fueled rather than have a tanker fly from Winnipeg to fuel a bird from Comox. 

It's not like we can't use civilian airfields.


----------



## aesop081 (14 Jan 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> I don't see AAR as a necessity, especially on an aircraft that's never going to deploy nor fly to Europe. I would hazard a guess that in 99% of the instances, it'd be easier and cheaper to land at some airfield to get fueled rather than have a tanker fly from Winnipeg to fuel a bird from Comox.
> 
> It's not like we can't use civilian airfields.



I don't disagree with you. I don't see it as a necessity either but wouldn't it be an inexpensive capability. Since FWSAR will most likely not have the range of the CC-130, i can see AAR being being useful although not a "must have".  With an aircraft with a shortter radius of action/time on station, we could always coordinate the use of tankers for long searches over the atlantic, pacific or in the high north. I realise that it is cheaper and more convenient to use civ airfields but i don't think it would cost us much to have the manufacturer throw in a refueling probe so that if push came to shove......


----------



## Mortar guy (14 Jan 2005)

Thanks aesop and inch! As for the Dash-8's range, I would definitely base them in Pat Bay or Comox and Shearwater. The reason why is (don't laugh) I think this type of role would be ideal for the air reserve. Actually I think all domestic roles should be the purvue of the reserves but thats another topic.

As for FW SAR, I heard that we were looking at 15 a/c with options on 6 more. Perhaps those 6 additional a/c could be configured for MRMP?

MG


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 Jan 2005)

Just a little more information from the Bombardier Website:

1.   Picture of Coastwatch Q-200 with Maritime Patrol Package including conformal observation window.








2. Picture of Martime Patrol Q-200 Interior:







3.   Picture of Maritime Patrol Q-200 Observation Window:







There is also a specific note about the ability to add hardpoints when you start with the base 
"missionized Q-series" which may allow for external fuel tanks.




M.


----------



## Inch (14 Jan 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> I don't disagree with you. I don't see it as a necessity either but wouldn't it be an inexpensive capability. Since FWSAR will most likely not have the range of the CC-130, i can see AAR being being useful although not a "must have".   With an aircraft with a shortter radius of action/time on station, we could always coordinate the use of tankers for long searches over the atlantic, pacific or in the high north. I realise that it is cheaper and more convenient to use civ airfields but i don't think it would cost us much to have the manufacturer throw in a refueling probe so that if push came to shove......



That's the kicker, it won't be just when push comes to shove, the pilots will need to maintain currency at AAR, it'd have to be a regular occurrence. So if you're not going to add in the requirements to stay current, what's the point in having the kit on your aircraft when no one is qualified to use it?


----------



## aesop081 (14 Jan 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> That's the kicker, it won't be just when push comes to shove, the pilots will need to maintain currency at AAR, it'd have to be a regular occurrence. So if you're not going to add in the requirements to stay current, what's the point in having the kit on your aircraft when no one is qualified to use it?



I see your point but i did take into account the currency requirement ( a concept that i am slowly getting used to since remustering) when i discussed AAR.  I understand how short we are on time/YFR due to ops tempo/budgets  but i see AAR as an essential part of air ops in a modern air force. Tanker pilots will already have to remain curent at AAR so the oportunity will be there for SAR pilots to remain current. I realise that i might be stretching things a bit here but how many more lives could we save if the Cormorant was capable of AAR ? Same could be said if our new FWSAR aircraft could have longer range/search time/time on station .........oh well , my $0.02......i'll admit to not being any sort of expert but it seems to me like a very inexpensive way to expand our capabilities.


----------



## Inch (14 Jan 2005)

I am picking up what you're putting down. I'm not disagreeing with your idea, I'm just pointing out that IMO, it wouldn't work nor be feasible given the current and immediate future situations. The problem is where the tankers are located and how many we have. The SAR you're talking about is done off shore while all our AAR assets are based inland. Sure we could move them to the coasts but that would mean the guys that really use them, ie the Hornets, wouldn't have them avail. It's a logistics thing.


----------



## aesop081 (14 Jan 2005)

i see what you mean by logistics.  But as it stands now, the fighters are not far from the coasts themselves. Bagottvilles is far from Winnipeg/trenton ( in relative terms).  We already deploy the 18s away from the main operating bases so why not do the same for tankers, like a tanker rotation to east/west coast in support of fighter/SAR ops. That would put the tankers in an ideal position to supprt Airlift ops as the hercs need fuel in the air once they are over the ocean as the can refual at canadian airfields until the hit the water. So if we were to move AAR assets to the coast..............any thoughts ?


----------



## Inch (14 Jan 2005)

To be honest, I don't know the inner workings of the fighter community, all I know is that they are the VIP customers for the tanker service and they seem to be content with it the way it is.

As for a rotation, there are lots of Hornet pilots, not so many tanker crews. Crew over-rotation would be a problem unless you trained more tanker crews which is easier said than done.

Also to my knowledge, our Hercs don't refuel in the air. They stop in Gander before hopping across the pond.

Honestly, Zoomie would be able to better answer this with respect to how much they would actually use AAR in the SAR world. My guess is not that much.


----------



## aesop081 (14 Jan 2005)

Yeah...i have actualy though of those things after i posted but i don't see training more tanker pilots as a problem, specialy if you recruit reserve pilots, you can get experienced A300 guys who just need AAR training. I know that our current fleet of hercs do not refuel in flight, i jst didn;t explain my piont very well in that if, in the future, we actualy replace the CC-130E/H for, lets say, C-130J and even get a stategic airlifter, AAR should be at the forefront of canadian deplyement capabilities as it deminishes our dependance on foreign airfeilds for transit and reduces deployement times...at least IMO. I would like to hear zoomie's thoughts on AAR for the SAR community as he would be more in a position to speak of this with any authority, i simply see it as an extension of capabilities not difficult to acheive.


----------



## Zoomie (14 Jan 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> ... how much they would actually use AAR in the SAR world. My guess is not that much.



Good guess...

I really don't think that AAR is a "need to have" capability, it may very well be a "nice to have" but logistically (like Inch mentioned) it would be a nightmare.

We will only have two CC-150's retro-fitted with fueling drogues.  Assuming 100% serviceability (yeh right!) we could post one on each coast.  SAR standby is 24/7, that means we would have 3 crews on standby (1x CH-149. 1x CC-115 and 1x CC-150) - do we have that many Polaris crews?  A Buffalo has the legs to cover all of its SAR region without refueling.  If we were tasked to fly to Whitehorse and search for a missing aircraft, we could fly there in one hop, refuel in Whitehorse, eat food and then get at least an hour or two of searching done before night. _ <as a side note: The new FWSAR has a speed requirement written into the contract - this time would then be shortened dramatically, as the Buff is slow...> _  

I could see AAR come in handy during extensive over-water searches, but do we really want to tie up a resource such as a CC-150 on the premise that we might have to search for someone, sometime.  Realistically, the Polaris' would sit on the ground for 99% of the time... 

Back to the issue of Dash-8's...

I really like the idea of having a light MP aircraft that can perform close in littoral (ie coast) crawls up and down Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte's.  We do this with our CP-140s and they are very effective.  However there is a lot of ocean out there and it is expensive to run an Aurora every day.  If we left the task of patrolling our inner waters and coasts to a smaller cousin (ie Dash-8 or CASA) we could free up the Aurora's for the off-shore work.  As it is, our 140's only get to conduct "presence patrols" once or twice a week, and never in the same spot twice.  A light MP aircraft could fly a fixed route at alternating times (to keep the bad guys guessing) and be able to cover the coast line in one mission.

War story time (chin strap done up)  :warstory:
Just a couple of weeks ago I was up flying some continuation training and was conducting a coastal crawl just north of Powell River, near Comox.  We basically fly at 500 feet above water level (AWL) and stick very close to the shore (for searching purposes).  At one point I was arcing out over an open bay of water, maneuvering the aircraft for a better run in at a particular island, when the crew spotted two vessels stopped in the water.  As soon as we arced over head, these two boats started up and went off in separate directions at full power.  Whether or not we had inadvertantly disturbed a deal going down was immaterial to me, it just proved a point.  When we fly at 200kts +, the bad guys really can't get away too quickly - especially in power boats going 15kts.  An increased presence of grey (or yellow) aircraft off our coasts would be a good deterence for any and all illicit activities.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jan 2005)

Seeing as how you lot are talking about AAR for FWSAR got me to wondering again.

Is there any merit to rigging the Cormorants for AAR and could it be done from an existing platform like the Aurora?    I seem to recall that the USN has/had a "buddy-pack?" system that IIRC could be carried by a variety of AC so that the USN could extend strike range.   Two AC launch, one with fuel, one with weapons, number two tops up and fuel buddy goes back to the deck.

A scenario for the Coastal forces could then be something like:

On warning from Satellite (SARSAT or RadarSat) UAV is rerouted to verify problem. CF18 with recce kit and strike gear does fast transit to confirm visual sighting and hold until Aurora gets on scene.   Aurora maintains circuit until Cormorant arrives.   If Aurora had "buddy-pack" refuelling capability (assuming such a thing is not a complete figment of my delusional mind) could it be used to extend the reach of both the CF18 and the Cormorant allowing power projection deeper into our approaches.


----------



## Sam69 (15 Jan 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> A scenario for the Coastal forces could then be something like:
> 
> On warning from Satellite (SARSAT or RadarSat) UAV is rerouted to verify problem. CF18 with recce kit and strike gear does fast transit to confirm visual sighting and hold until Aurora gets on scene.  Aurora maintains circuit until Cormorant arrives.  If Aurora had "buddy-pack" refuelling capability (assuming such a thing is not a complete figment of my delusional mind) could it be used to extend the reach of both the CF18 and the Cormorant allowing power projection deeper into our approaches.



I'm curious why you added the Hornet into the SAR mix? If you already have the SARSAT hit AND a UAV on scene, what does the Hornet add to the mix unless you rig a SKAD to the Hornet (precision guided SKAD?). The other problem would be the Hornet's endurance, without AAR, its time on station would likely be measured in minutes making it unlikely that it could hold until the arrival of the tanker.

"Buddy packs" are not a figment of you imagination, the USN does have them. But why put them on the CP-140? Why not just rig the FWSAR aircraft with a drogue and allow it to help extend the helo assets range and endurance on station?

Sam


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Jan 2005)

Sam69:

What I was getting at was the thought that by adding a Hornet presence on our Coasts then there would be a highspeed capability to get "eyes-on" any unknown objects discovered by Satellite, Radar, SOSUS or even reported by other vessels and that are in the gaps between standing patrol areas.  A mix of something like Sniper or Lantirn, and SKAD and/or surface strike systems (not many because legs and eyes would be more important than arms) on the Hornet would offer Commanders another way of either aiding or otherwise reacting to developing situations.  

In like vein I was thinking about the Cormorant not just as a Rescue vehicle but also as a transport vehicle capable of transporting a boarding party to an unidentified vessel or a vessel posing either a military threat or just a threat to navigation.

The more refuelling capability the farther out at sea more questions can be answered and the threat to the mainland can be reduced.

As to the buddy-packs per se - no reason to fix on them.  I guess I was casting about in my memory banks for a pratical low-cost solution that we might be able to implement but your point about adding a drogue system to the FWSAR would also fill the bill, and better.

I suppose I failed to consider that type of thing because it seems to be costing a fair bit of money and quite a bit of time to convert the CC150s to tankers as it did with the CC130's so I was probably assuming that that type of option would be too expensive for us.  On the other hand it seems to me that when the RAF was putting out its tender for its fleet of civilian auxiliary tankers then the spec just called for the AC to be capable of converting to the tanker role in something like a day or so. It seemed to me at the time I read that some years ago that they must be preparing so that they would just bolt on the refuelling sponsons (or whatever they're called) like an extra-fuel tank to a hard-point.  

Does it actually take much to give an aircraft an ability to refuel others?

Anyway, the my thought here was all about legs and the ability to get aid, bodies and if necessary strike capability farther out to sea.  Distance would enhance continental security, it would also make us better able to supply assistance.

Just random thoughts.

Cheers.


----------



## Inch (15 Jan 2005)

Kirkhill, good thoughts, but from a law of the sea standpoint, we only control out to 12 miles. 12 miles is our sovereign territory, beyond that, everyone can do what they want. We have economic rights out to 200nm for fishing, oil, etc, but as far as boarding someone outside 12 miles, IIRC, the only reason you can board someone is for piracy or if it's a Canadian flagged vessel.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (15 Jan 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> Kirkhill, good thoughts, but from a law of the sea standpoint, we only control out to 12 miles. 12 miles is our sovereign territory, beyond that, everyone can do what they want. We have economic rights out to 200nm for fishing, oil, etc, but as far as boarding someone outside 12 miles, IIRC, the only reason you can board someone is for piracy or if it's a Canadian flagged vessel.



We should talk to the Americans about a North American Coastal Perimeter and push that distance out. 




Matthew.    ???


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Jan 2005)

Inch, if I am not mistaken, under a relatively new "anti-proliferation" law/protocol/doctrine the US along with some other nations, including Russia, the UK and Australia (working strictly from memory here) and with the backing of the UN have assumed the right to board unco-operative vessels on the high seas to search for Weapons of Mass Destruction, much as the Royal Navy assumed the right to board all vessels under various pretexts in the past.  These included controlling slavers, controlling pirates, enforcing embargoes and blockades and recovering deserters.  With the right pretext, acceptable under international law, then "Stop Checks" on the high seas seem to be permissible.

I am not sure if I have the details, or signatories, of the pretexts correct but it could supply legal cover to Canada to exert influence outside both territorial waters and the EEZ or even the Continental Shelf.  Perhaps someone wiser in the law than me can comment but I think that we already have some cover under various Fishery treaties to exert a policing authority out past the EEZ into the Northwest Atlantic Fishing Zone.  If this isn't already available I seem to recall it was under discussion within the past couple of years because of EU vessels taking advantage of the lack of a policing presence beyond the EEZ. Also haven't we also participated on anti-driftnet operations on the High Seas in the Pacific?

IIRC Australia has already used the WMP protocol pretext to extend its Area of Interest out to the 1000 km mark or thereabouts and has used that power to board a North Korean vessel involved in a triangle trade run involving drugs for Australia and Nuclear technology.  The Brits, Singaporeans and either the Malaysians or Indonesians are involved in similar ops in the Straits of Malacca and just before the invasion of Iraq the US (I think the Spanish might have been involved as well) stopped another N. Korean freighter carrying construction cement and Scud-type missiles into Yemen.  The missiles were allowed to proceed.  Who knew...I didn't anyway.....that Yemen owned and operated Scuds and needed replacements just before Iraq was invaded.

One other option that could be considered as stores for all AC, FW and RW could be more of those ubiquitous UAVs.   CF188 makes fast run out to grid point in poor weather.  Releases UAV to penetrate below the weather to confirm target of interest.  Orbits until either FWSAR or Aurora comes on station to take control of situation and either loiters or returns to Station.  FW command platform then decides whether aid, boarding or destruction is the appropriate response and resources allocated appropriately.

Running in overdrive here.....Beware, possible silliness alert, 

Cheers


----------



## aesop081 (15 Jan 2005)

I'm not sure   if its the fact that we have discussed both MP and SAR issues here but i think you   are "overthinking" both issues. Not to detract on you views however, you have some valid ideas.

CF-188s are not required in the SAR environment. A patroling CP-140 going balls to the wall ( and beleive me it can) can respond to a SAR situation with SKAD until surface assets or, more probably, Rotary wing SAR, gets there. On both sides of the country, MPAs are closer than the fighter to respond to high-seas emergencies. We also have the CC-130Es, CC-115s ( and soon the FWSAR) so the CF-188 add nothing to the SAR environment.

In a "sovereignty/sea control (maybe not the right terms) CP-140s on their own provide what is required.   They have the ability to identify VOIs at long ranges using radar, FLIR and ESM. Once the surface plot is complete, VOIs can be prioritized and selected for further identification. If a vesel is determined to be doing illigeal fishing/polluting, it is the photographed by the CP-140 and reported to goverment authorities. If the vesel represent an armed threat ( say in a wartime environment), it can be prosecuted by the CP-140 itself using Mk 46 mod V torpedoes ( subs only) or AGM-84 ( surface vessels). This is where the CF-188s can have a role but a purely visual/radar identification and strike as, correct me if i am wrong, they do not have an ESM system to do stand-off ID.

Even if you put UAVs into the mix, the images provided will enable you to determine the status of the VOI and launch the apropriate response, be it FWSAR, RW SAR,MPA or Fighters

I might be misstaking things but you seem to have melted SAR and MP roles together.

EDIT :add-ons needed to clarify what was going on in my overloaded mind


----------



## Inch (15 Jan 2005)

Kirkhill, that's the first I've heard of that. I did my Maritime Warfare course back in Oct and I've had 2 other Laws of Armed Conflict lectures as well this past fall. All of our planning on the MW course revolved around making sure the ship was within 12nm before boarding the suspect vessels since outside 12nm, technically, it's not Canada and therefore our laws don't apply.

We have fought vigorously about the fishing laws since 200nm doesn't include all of the Continental shelf on the east coast, but fishing rights and the right to board a ship that's flying a foreign flag in the high seas (anything outside 12nm) are two different things. If we agreed to something like that, that means we also agreed to allow our ships to be boarded on the high seas. In any case, warships can't be boarded, only merchant vessels. Warships on the other hand aren't permitted inside another country's territorial waters without permission, and in that case there's certain provisions that much be met, things like no fire control radar, no aircraft launches, etc. 

Also, I think you're over estimating the CF188 loiter time, maybe if it launched from Comox or Gander/Shearwater, but as Sam said, there is no way it could loiter for more than a few minutes if launched from anywhere other than coastal airfields.

aesop, I'm pretty sure that the Mk46's that the Auroras carry are the same ones we carry, in that case, they're not anti ship. They're only anti-sub. They have a min and max depth, due to OPSEC I can't say what that is, but according to this site http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-46.htm the min depth is 20 yards, most ships don't sit 60ft down in the water so the torpedo would never be able to acquire the target.


----------



## aesop081 (15 Jan 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> aesop, I'm pretty sure that the Mk46's that the Auroras carry are the same ones we carry, in that case, they're not anti ship. They're only anti-sub. They have a min and max depth, due to OPSEC I can't say what that is, but according to this site http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-46.htm the min depth is 20 yards, most ships don't sit 60ft down in the water so the torpedo would never be able to acquire the target.



Yeah i know...i forgot to type the words "in case of sub" !    All fixed now.........


----------



## Sheerin (15 Jan 2005)

I didn't think our CP-140s had the ability to launch harpoons?


----------



## aesop081 (15 Jan 2005)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> I didn't think our CP-140s had the ability to launch harpoons?



I refer you to:

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/cp-140/intro_e.asp

look down on the page in the specs for weapons.  I have been told by many in the MPA community that the kit exists


----------



## Sheerin (15 Jan 2005)

hmm, thanks for the info.  I always knew they could, but always thought we never got the kit for it.


----------



## Zoomie (15 Jan 2005)

Canadian CP-140's do not carrythe Harpoon AGM.  The hardpoints exist, but the training does not.  AIMP phase 4 (if it gets funded) has talk about possibily including some sort of airborne launched weapon.  Torps and SKADS, that's it for now...


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Jan 2005)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/psi.htm
http://www.msc.navy.mil/sealift/2004/February/seasaber.htm
http://www.warshipsifr.com/pages/huntForWMD.html

This is what I was thinking about guys.  It's the Proliferation Security Initiative and it was announced May 31, 2003.  I haven't re-read the items to confirm content.  (If at variance with what I have said - they're right, I'm wrong.)

As to legs of the CF188, aesop that is why I was suggesting I was suggesting a proliferation of AAR platforms.  Having said that, your comment about over-thinking the issue is probably a fair comment.  In fact I would go farther, I am more likely guilty of UNDER-thinking the issue.

Cheers, and continued safe flying to the lot of you.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Jan 2005)

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1329

www.lcnp.org/disarmament/MEMO_NK_interdiction.PDF

Here's the Canadian position and a legal opinion.   As I read it, the Initiative seems to be saying that any unidentified vessel, or any suspect vessel flying under a flag of convenience whose government has agreed to allow the inspection can be boarded on the high seas and searched.  Canada seems to be in agreement and DND seems to be saying we can and would conduct such activities.

Anywho.... fyi.

Cheers.


----------



## Inch (16 Jan 2005)

Thanks for the info Kirkhill, that makes a little more sense. The way I read it is you still need permission from the government whose flag is being flown. Even if the crew is all Canadian citizens, if they're flying another country's flag, they can't be boarded. If it was a Canadian flag, we could board at will. The thing about that agreement is it's only that, an agreement. So if a ship flying an Ecuadorian flag is suspect and the Government of Ecuador says no to the boarding, there isn't a thing we can do and we revert back to the 12nm of sovereign Canadian waters.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Jan 2005)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Canadian CP-140's do not carrythe Harpoon AGM.   The hardpoints exist, but the training does not.   AIMP phase 4 (if it gets funded) has talk about possibily including some sort of airborne launched weapon.   Torps and SKADS, that's it for now...



Yeah, i was aware of those facts but i do include it as a capability because the A/C can do it and it would not take much to get it going for our crews.  Look at what the argentinians did with exocet and very little training in its employement and no technical support.  Bottom line for me is that the CP-140 has the hardpoints to carry AGM-84s so we could do it.  I realy hope that AIMP block IV comes trough.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Jan 2005)

That's the way I read it as well but with a couple of interesting riders.   One is that an "unidentified" vessel - one flying no flag - can be boarded,   I'm guessing that that was always possible under current slavery/piracy/fishery regulations.   The other is that I can imagine that some persuasive effort might be exerted on all nations, especially the poorer flag of convenience nations to allow this type of boarding and inspection.

I am looking at the situation as analogous to our local coppers.   It gives them one more "probable cause" to justify search and siezure.   The difference is that on land there are few regions of the developed world where you cross out of one jurisdiction into a region with no, or a disputed, jurisdiction.   At sea the situation seems to be more complex, but perhaps you can explain how admiralty law was used to control slavery and piracy on the high seas?   Especially if the activities were carried out under national flags.

Sorry for dragging this thread off topic somewhat, but as these thoughts pertain to our Areas of Interest, Influence and Operations I think they pertain to what types of Patrol Aircraft, in what mix, we need.


----------



## Inch (16 Jan 2005)

As I said, I'm no expert on the Laws of the Sea, I know what applies to me as a Sea King pilot, but that's about the extent of it. Piracy and slavery are forbidden under the Laws of the Sea, thus any warship from a country that ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea has the right to board merchant vessels in order to put a stop to slavery and piracy. My understanding of the high seas is that as long as you're not participating in piracy or the slave trade, you can do pretty much whatever you want. 

Maybe Sam can jump in here since he's probably got more in depth knowledge wrt this situation.


----------



## Garbageman (16 Jan 2005)

From the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea:  States must also "cooperate in the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances..." (Article 108).  Pretty loosely worded though - I'm not sure how much power we'd have to board if the flag state isn't onside.  I've been reading through old law texts trying to find an answer to this, but it's hard to say what rights we have outside 12nm.  It seems clear that if it's an issue of over-fishing or some other form of environmental degredation in the EEZ (out to 200nm), then we do have the power to stop and board a vessel.

Someone slap me if I'm way out to lunch, but that's my take anyway.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (7 Feb 2005)

Maybe we should be looking into CL-415MP... for Patrol
http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=3_0&lang=en&file=/en/3_0/3_3/3_3_7_61.html  
Amphibious Multi-Purpose Aircraft... With EO/IR, Radar, and the Latest and greatest in Avionics Technology.


----------



## rosmalia (28 Feb 2005)

just wanna know either Dash 8 had already in the maritime configuration or not... coz i didnt see any proven capability/news stated that Dash 8 (especially Q400) were configured in maritime/surveillance prupose...


----------



## STONEY (5 Mar 2005)

I thought i'd throw a couple more points into the discussion.

Transport Canada flys pollution patrols in a specially configured Dash 8 out of Moncton & StJohn's on the east coast on 6 !/2 
missions . There is only 1 of them and it rotates across Canada spending a few days patroling in turn the east coast ,St.Lawrence, Great lakes and west coast.

DOF also flys fisheries surveillance patrols on east coast with King Airs on 6 hr. missions  with 3 aircraft out of Halifax & St.John`s  The data obtained from these flights is fed to MARCOM to help complete surface picture off our coasts.

Under the NAFO agreement Canadian vessels are allowed to stop and inspect fishing vessels outside the 200 mile limit and routinely do this east of Nfld. 

AAR`S like Polaris would`t be used for SAR because they refuel at too high an altitude and speed and are used to refuel jets.
Herc tankers are used to fuel helo`s and even they have to fly just above stall speed for a helo to keep up. The US uses them to refuel theis choppers on long SAR missions. The new FWSAR could be fitted with a fueling probe  but weather the cost & effort would be worthwile considering the amount of times it would ever be used is another matter.

cheers


----------



## X-Rigger (19 May 2005)

Hmm.  Interesting and kinda sad at the same time, since 434 Sqn used to fly the Challengers in a limited MP role, now they're all but gone.  They often came back with photographic evidence of illegal activity including overfishing and dumping.  Although the maritime environment was hard on the a/c, it was still a fairly cost-effective platform with a decent endurance of somewhere around 4-6 hours (IIRC).  Funny how these issues are always cyclical eh!


----------

