# Boeing to offer P-8 as CP-140 Replacement



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2022)

Interesting…I’ll be CRA before this might happen I’d wager, but would love to see these sitting on the aprons at ZX and QQ.

P-8 offered as Aurora replacement

Boeing on Feb. 10 announced its intent to offer the P-8A Poseidon in response to Canada’s Request for Information (RFI) for long-range maritime patrol aircraft. The Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft (CMMA) project will replace the Royal Canadian Air Force fleet of CP-140 Aurora aircraft and enhance its anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities.

With more than 140 aircraft in service, the P-8 has executed more than 400,000 mishap free flight-hours around the globe. Militaries that operate or have selected the P-8 include the U.S. Navy, the United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force, Royal Australian Air Force, Royal New Zealand Air Force, Indian Navy, Royal Norwegian Air Force, Republic of Korea Navy and German Navy.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Feb 2022)

Better to base out of major cities, where you can tap into AC and WJ pilots in the Air Res for additional capacity, and into extant simulators, giving career stability in locations where spouses can find employment, with the understanding that crews will spend 2-3 months away every year (sometimes forward based at ZX and QQ).


----------



## FSTO (10 Feb 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Better to base out of major cities, where you can tap into AC and WJ pilots in the Air Res for additional capacity, and into extant simulators, giving career stability in locations where spouses can find employment, with the understanding that crews will spend 2-3 months away every year (sometimes forward based at ZX and QQ).


According to the latest census, mid size cities seem to be rather popular. BTW Comox is not the end of the world with its good weather, golfing and skiing close by and reasonably priced housing. Cripes even Greenwood isn't out Siberia!









						What the 2021 census tells us about Canada’s changing population
					

Statistics Canada reports population increases in the Maritimes and Canada’s downtowns as country climbs to  36.9 million people




					www.theglobeandmail.com


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2022)

Comox is expensive;  like my Dad did in the late 70s/early 80s, I’ve avoided a Comox posting for housing costs and, for me, the “no PLD” factor.  Greenwood is seen as…undesirable by some (many?).

Personally, I’d of loved it if they had moved LRP and SAR to Shearwater before selling off a large portion of the runway.  Close to blue water, the RCN, MH…and a better QOL for members and families.   But…that didn’t happen. 

Politics; Comox and Greenwood are likely significant revenue generators in their locations…


----------



## FSTO (10 Feb 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Comox is expensive;  Greenwood is seen as…undesirable by some (many?).
> 
> Personally, I’d of loved it if they had moved LRP and SAR to Shearwater before selling off a large portion of the runway.  Close to blue water, the RCN, MH…and a better QOL for members and families.   But…that didn’t happen.
> 
> Politics; Comox and Greenwood are likely significant revenue generators in their locations…


Re Shearwater: I wonder if the RCAF didn't like the thought of their LRPA folks being too close to those traitorous MH types and even worse the RCN and didn't fight hard to keep the runway!


----------



## dimsum (10 Feb 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Better to base out of major cities, where you can tap into AC and WJ pilots in the Air Res for additional capacity, and into extant simulators, giving career stability in locations where spouses can find employment, with the understanding that crews will spend 2-3 months away every year (sometimes forward based at ZX and QQ).


QQ already has WJ 737s operating out there.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Feb 2022)

Operating out of, or based out of?

Leveraging their maintenance and sims so we can spend less on them is another way to stretch defence dollars...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2022)

Their sims would be limited to "flight deck" (which, of course is better than nothing).   Maybe a central LRP MOB (with all the required sims/OPTs/PTTs/PCTs) with QQ and ZX as "FOBs" would be a consideration to look at...

I'll watch it all unfold from my wheelchair after my afternoon "old folks home nap"!  😁


----------



## dimsum (10 Feb 2022)

Honest question:  

Aside from fighters and SAR, why do we need squadrons on both sides of the country?  Or in the case of Tac Hel, multiple areas?  We don't even do it with our Strat and tactical airlift (specifically the C-130J - the other Hercs are tasked with SAR so I'll let that slide).

Again, aside from SAR or fighters, speed to the location isn't generally the most important factor.  If MH needs to sail on a ship, have the aircraft fly out (or transport it by whatever means) to meet it.  If Tac Hel needs to go on exercise with the Army, fly it out to Wainwright/Gagetown/wherever for the exercise.  

You can even keep the number of squadrons (and CO positions) but just put them all in one place for each fleet.


----------



## KevinB (10 Feb 2022)

dimsum said:


> Honest question:
> 
> Aside from fighters and SAR, why do we need squadrons on both sides of the country?  Or in the case of Tac Hel, multiple areas?  We don't even do it with our Strat and tactical airlift (specifically the C-130J - the other Hercs are tasked with SAR so I'll let that slide).
> 
> ...


To Dilute the parent service influence as best as one can...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2022)

dimsum said:


> Honest question:
> 
> Aside from fighters and SAR, why do we need squadrons on both sides of the country?  Or in the case of Tac Hel, multiple areas?  We don't even do it with our Strat and tactical airlift (specifically the C-130J - the other Hercs are tasked with SAR so I'll let that slide).
> 
> ...



I don't think we need LRP Sqn on both coasts - as you've pointed out before, the RAAF doesn't do business that way.   Do we need to, or do we just continue to do it "because".  I think there's some trg and personnel efficiency to be gained by centralizing.  The question would be "where";  where could LRP centralize and still be able to do things like Devils Deep, COREXs, etc?  Thorney Island...pick it up and move it;  will the civilian staff also uproot?  (just a few 'spoiler' thoughts that always come to mind thinking about this...)

Tac Hel - I do see the benefit of locating them closer to Army bases;  CTC and 403 co-located "makes sense" and that kind of flows to the other Tac Avn Sqns (Edmonton - 408, Pet and the proximity Sqn's).


----------



## armrdsoul77 (10 Feb 2022)

Nice big cockpit windows for Japanese LRP.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2022)

Ya it’s a nice looking aircraft.   I am not sure how the 2 of them compare in reality for endurance, sensors, data processing/networking, stores capacity (search and kill).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Feb 2022)

best I can do








						Boeing P-8 Poseidon - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				












						Kawasaki P-1 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




P-8
*General characteristics*


*Crew:* Flight: two; Mission: seven
*Capacity:* 19,800 lb (9,000 kg)
*Length:* 129 ft 5 in (39.47 m)
*Wingspan:* 123 ft 6 in (37.64 m)
*Height:* 42 ft 1 in (12.83 m)
*Empty weight:* 138,300 lb (62,730 kg)
*Max takeoff weight:* 189,200 lb (85,820 kg)
*Powerplant:* 2 × CFM56-7B27A turbofans, 27,300 lbf (121 kN) thrust each
*Performance*


*Maximum speed:* 564 mph (907 km/h, 490 kn)
*Cruise speed:* 509 mph (815 km/h, 440 kn)
*Combat range:* 1,381 mi (2,222 km, 1,200 nmi) ; 4 hours on station (for anti-submarine warfare mission)
*Ferry range:* 5,200 mi (8,300 km, 4,500 nmi)
*Service ceiling:* 41,000 ft (12,496 m)
*Armament*


Hardpoints: 11 total
internal bay with 5 hardpoints and 6 external hardpoints for a variety of conventional weapons, e.g. AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER, AGM-84 Harpoon, Mark 54 torpedo, mines, depth charges, and the _High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon Capability (HAAWC) system_[182]
*Avionics*


Raytheon APY-10 multi-mission surface search radar[41]
AN/ALQ-240 Electronic Support Measures Suite[183]
AN/APS-154 Advanced Airborne Sensor[184]
P-1​*General characteristics*


*Crew:* 3 flight crew: 3 mission crew: 8[64][65]
*Length:* 38 m (124 ft 8 in)
*Wingspan:* 35.4 m (116 ft 2 in)
*Height:* 12.1 m (39 ft 8 in)
*Max takeoff weight:* 79,700 kg (175,708 lb)
*Powerplant:* 4 × IHI Corporation F7 turbofan engines, 60 kN (13,000 lbf) thrust each
*Performance*


*Maximum speed:* 996 km/h (619 mph, 538 kn)
*Cruise speed:* 833 km/h (518 mph, 450 kn)
*Range:* 8,000 km (5,000 mi, 4,300 nmi)
*Combat range:* 2,500 km (1,600 mi, 1,300 nmi)
*Service ceiling:* 13,520 m (44,360 ft)
*Armament*


*Hardpoints:*8 (2x on each wing and 2x on each wing root) and eight internal bomb bay stations with a capacity of 9,000 kg (19,842 lb) +, with provisions to carry combinations of:
*Missiles:*

AGM-84 Harpoon
ASM-1C
AGM-65 Maverick

*Bombs:*

mines
depth charges

*Other:*

MK-46
Type 97 torpedo
G-RX5 torpedo
30+ pre-loaded sonobuoys, 70+ sonobuoys deployable from inside
*Avionics*


*Radar:* Toshiba, Active Electronically Scanned Array radar system
*Sonar:* NEC, multi-static sound navigation system sound
*Anti-submarine systems:*SHINKO ELECTRIC CO.LTD., Advanced combat direction system
*Other:* Mitsubishi, Electronic countermeasures (CMD, RWR, MWS, ESM)


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Feb 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Operating out of, or based out of?
> 
> Leveraging their maintenance and sims so we can spend less on them is another way to stretch defence dollars...


I can think of serious ITAR issues, there. Plus, I am betting that the cockpit of a P8 only superficially resembles the cockpit of a 737 (that whole armament/sensor/datalink thing).

Also, if you intend on (presumably) basing LRP aircraft at (a) major Canadian airport, how do you intend on finding the explosive safe distance in a major urban area for the kill stores that go with it?


----------



## Czech_pivo (10 Feb 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> best I can do
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well the speed and range of the Japanese plane is nothing to sneeze at. Quick to get on target (handy when you've got huge distances to cover like we do) and able to stay onsite longer are great advantages.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Feb 2022)

Mirabel enters the conversation.

As well, airframes and ordinance do not necessarily have to be co located.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Feb 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Mirabel enters the conversation.
> 
> As well, airframes and ordinance do not necessarily have to be co located.


I do not think that you understand air weapons.

I will leave it at that.


----------



## dimsum (10 Feb 2022)

Czech_pivo said:


> Well the speed and range of the Japanese plane is nothing to sneeze at. Quick to get on target (handy when you've got huge distances to cover like we do) and able to stay onsite longer are great advantages.


I'm not sure the Japanese are willing (or allowed) to export that.


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Feb 2022)

Wonder if Bombardier might try to revive Saab Swordfish (Global 6000 airframe):



> Saab puts marketing effort for Swordfish maritime plane on hiatus​
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ping Monkey (10 Feb 2022)

dimsum said:


> I'm not sure the Japanese are willing (or allowed) to export that.


Japan has been eagerly trying to find an export customer for P-1 for many years.








						Exclusive: Japan seeks to sell sub-hunting jet to UK as Abe pushes arms exports
					

Japan is asking Britain to buy its P-1 submarine-hunting jet in a deal that could top $1 billion, a major step in Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's push to arms exports after decades of self-imposed restrictions, people with knowledge of the proposal said.




					www.reuters.com
				




I've been impressed by P-1 capabilities, but I think spares/parts availability would be a substantial issue for any international operator.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2022)

MarkOttawa said:


> Wonder if Bombardier might try to revive Saab Swordfish (Global 6000 airframe):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## armrdsoul77 (10 Feb 2022)

De Havilland launches Dash 8 P-4 maritime patrol aircraft - Air Data News

Or roll on/off maritime patrol kit for a c130 too someone was looking at developing.


----------



## Czech_pivo (10 Feb 2022)

Ping Monkey said:


> Japan has been eagerly trying to find an export customer for P-1 for many years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This part here was interesting. 

_Jointly building a P-1 that taps into Britain’s experience building the Nimrod would allow London to retain rights over radar and sensing technology it would lose by buying a U.S. aircraft regulated by the Pentagon, one source said._


----------



## Ping Monkey (10 Feb 2022)

armrdsoul77 said:


> De Havilland launches Dash 8 P-4 maritime patrol aircraft - Air Data News
> 
> Or roll on/off maritime patrol kit for a c130 too someone was looking at developing.


"Sea-130" has been proposed many times.  No biters yet.









						Lockheed Sees its SC-130J Sea Herc as The Affordable Solution to Answer UK Future MPA Needs
					

Lockheed Sees its SC-130J Sea Herc as The Affordable Solution to Answer UK Future MPA Needs




					www.navyrecognition.com
				












						PARIS: Lockheed unveils maritime patrol kit for C-130 Hercules
					

Lockheed Martin is working on a maritime patrol aircraft  retrofit kit for the C-130 Hercules.




					www.flightglobal.com


----------



## Ping Monkey (10 Feb 2022)

Some other interesting fielded (_not paper_) MPA options that have popped up just in the past 12 months:









						First 'Sea Sultan' Maritime Patrol Aircraft Joins Pakistan Navy - Naval News
					

The Pakistan Navy inducted its first of three modern maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) dubbed locally as "Sea Sultan" and designated "Long Range Maritime Patrol jet".




					www.navalnews.com
				












						MQ-9B Sea Guardian showcases manned-unmanned naval teaming
					

The US Navy has showcased successful manned-unmanned teaming between an unmanned maritime surveillance aircraft system and other naval platforms.




					www.naval-technology.com


----------



## dimsum (10 Feb 2022)

MarkOttawa said:


> Wonder if Bombardier might try to revive Saab Swordfish (Global 6000 airframe):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We do not want another Cyclone.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Feb 2022)

dimsum said:


> I'm not sure the Japanese are willing (or allowed) to export that.


They seem to been having a change of heart on arms export, quite willing to market their subs. Selling to a "low risk" country like Canada, would be good for future arms sales and build a relationship to potentially sell us subs.


----------



## dimsum (10 Feb 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> They seem to been having a change of heart on arms export, quite willing to market their subs. Selling to a "low risk" country like Canada, would be good for future arms sales and build a relationship to potentially sell us subs.


Fair.

Still though, the benefits of working off a 737 platform (probably the most common civilian airliner out there) AND having the P-8 adopted by not only all of the other 5-eyes nations, but a bunch of other allied nations, is a big selling point.  

Maybe pool logistics/parts/maintenance together or something with the other 5-eyes nations.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Feb 2022)

Ping Monkey said:


> Some other interesting fielded (_not paper_) MPA options that have popped up just in the past 12 months:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Viking enters Chat Maritime Mission | Viking's Aerial Firefighter


----------



## dimsum (10 Feb 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Viking enters Chat Maritime Mission | Viking's Aerial Firefighter


I'm not sure what that aircraft's range/endurance would be with missiles, torpedoes, sonobuoys, and the tactical equipment for ASW and ASuW.

MPAs aren't just flying cameras and radars.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Feb 2022)

dimsum said:


> MPAs aren't just flying cameras and radars.



So, a Cessna with a GoPro is out?  Even if we do final assembly in Chicoutimi?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2022)

dapaterson said:


> So, a Cessna with a GoPro is out?  Even if we do final assembly in Chicoutimi?


----------



## Spencer100 (10 Feb 2022)

Ok my idea from years ago. When there was talk to save Bombardier.  Develop the A200 as a MPA, using Lockheed Canada as prime.  

Made in Quebec!  System intergation in Ontario. Win win 

Would the Cyclones systems be transferable, plus add others? 

 Lockheed needs a MPA product and they are buddies with Airbus right now. Developing a joint tanker LMXT for the next tanker order. 









						LMXT: America's Next Strategic Tanker
					

We are leveraging our established tanking expertise to deliver the LMXT — a low-risk tanker.




					www.lockheedmartin.com


----------



## dimsum (10 Feb 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Ok my idea from years ago. When there was talk to save Bombardier.  Develop the A200 as a MPA, using Lockheed Canada as prime.
> 
> Made in Quebec!  System intergation in Ontario. Win win
> 
> ...


_Shudders in Cyclone_


----------



## dapaterson (10 Feb 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


>


You're just worried that the RCAF will discover that ACSOs aren't necessary, and you'll have to make your own coffee.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Feb 2022)

armrdsoul77 said:


> De Havilland launches Dash 8 P-4 maritime patrol aircraft - Air Data News
> 
> Or roll on/off maritime patrol kit for a c130 too someone was looking at developing.





Colin Parkinson said:


> Viking enters Chat Maritime Mission | Viking's Aerial Firefighter


OBE.  Longview swung the Dash 8 family back to de Havilland, and as armrdsoul77 notes above, DH and PAL are the latest version of Q400/P4 to be considered for pitching to Canada for CMA.  Longview may even throw a bone to QC by asking L3MAS to do some minor work, as L3(Harris) has to date, been the only company to actually make a high-end ISR Q400. de Havilland inherited the work with L3HARRIS from Bombardier.


----------



## Spencer100 (10 Feb 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> View attachment 68619
> 
> OBE.  Longview swung the Dash 8 family back to de Havilland, and as armrdsoul77 notes above, DH and PAL are the latest version of Q400/P4 to be considered for pitching to Canada for CMA.  Longview may even throw a bone to QC by asking L3MAS to do some minor work, as L3(Harris) has to date, been the only company to actually make a high-end ISR Q400. de Havilland inherited the work with L3HARRIS from Bombardier.


This also fits the bill. Made in Canada.  Plus I doubt it can carry a weapons load. So that's a bonus our government.  Plus the accountants will love as no weapons no cost.


----------



## dimsum (10 Feb 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> This also fits the bill. Made in Canada.  Plus I doubt it can carry a weapons load. So that's a bonus our government.  Plus the accountants will love as no weapons no cost.


Not to bring "facts" into this, but here is the link for the RFI in Buy and Sell.  

Carrying and launching weapons is part of the requirement.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Would the Cyclones systems be transferable, plus add others?



Transferable or not, they are not properly sorted out yet or the right gear for a MMA/LRPA.  MDMS isn’t a capable or as smooth as DMS (Aurora), the sensors aren’t as capable as Block 3 or 4 Aurora…think about what year the MHWS components were procured; it wasn’t yesterday.   

If we’re going to replace a fleet, replace it with something MORE capable than Block 3 is/Block 4 will be.   

Take a look at the P-1 radar.  That’s the type of replacement  we should be looking to; modern sensors that can add to the network centric warfare model that are on a faster, more reliable vehicle.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2022)

dapaterson said:


> You're just worried that the RCAF will discover that ACSOs aren't necessary, and you'll have to make your own coffee.


 I’m scared we will either (1) buy some Aussie or Kiwi “gently used” P-3s, or the new airframe will have a Fisher Price sticker on it…😐

But…I’m 51.  Even if they move CRA to age 70…I’ll never have to do conversion to the “new LRP fleet”.  😁


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> This also fits the bill. Made in Canada.  Plus I doubt it can carry a weapons load. So that's a bonus our government.  Plus the accountants will love as no weapons no cost.









Torps are pretty neat things to have on an ASW aircraft.

 The same components that carry, store, protect and release our torps also do the same functions for SKADS / ASKADs.  Those are nifty for SAR; LRP is very good at the “search” part, not so good at the “rescue” part so it would be nice to keep that capability.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> View attachment 68619
> 
> OBE.  Longview swung the Dash 8 family back to de Havilland, and as armrdsoul77 notes above, DH and PAL are the latest version of Q400/P4 to be considered for pitching to Canada for CMA.  Longview may even throw a bone to QC by asking L3MAS to do some minor work, as L3(Harris) has to date, been the only company to actually make a high-end ISR Q400. de Havilland inherited the work with L3HARRIS from Bombardier.



Pretty sure I saw this aircraft at YHZ in Nov close to 6 Hgr.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Feb 2022)

Ideally, it will be bog standard off the line with the only Canadianization a RCAF Roundel.  Bespoke fleets are NP hogs.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Feb 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> This also fits the bill. Made in Canada.  Plus I doubt it can carry a weapons load. So that's a bonus our government.  Plus the accountants will love as no weapons no cost.


Warmed weapons bays for the Mk.54s 👍🏼


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Feb 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Pretty sure I saw this aircraft at YHZ in Nov close to 6 Hgr.


Probably C-GFMX.  A Q300.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Warmed weapons bays for the Mk.54s 👍🏼



Oh?

Location?  Aft of the belly pod?


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Feb 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Oh?
> 
> Location?  Aft of the belly pod?


Not on the PAL P4, but the L3 Q400, but if L3 was subbed by de Havilland and PAL, it would definitely be on the table.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2022)

Copy;  I thought you meant the L3 Q400 has them already.   I started looking for pics and some more data on that aircraft.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Feb 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Copy;  I thought you meant the L3 Q400 has them already.   I started looking for pics and some more data on that aircraft.


The current fitment shows external fitment of 46/54/other, but I was talking to an L3 rep at the Dubai Airshow who said they also have internal options (non-pressurized) in the lateral sponsons.  The ventral sponson is for fuel.


----------



## Spencer100 (10 Feb 2022)

dimsum said:


> Not to bring "facts" into this, but here is the link for the RFI in Buy and Sell.
> 
> Carrying and launching weapons is part of the requirement.


I was being tongue in cheek.


----------



## kev994 (10 Feb 2022)

dimsum said:


> We do not want another Cyclone.


RCAF doesn’t, but it sounds cheap, while its most likely very expensive in the long run, so it sounds like something right down PSPCs alley.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> The current fitment shows external fitment of 46/52/other, but I was talking to an L3 rep at the Dubai Airshow who said they also have internal options (non-pressurized) in the lateral sponsons.  The ventral sponson is for fuel.
> View attachment 68624



Copy;  heated laterals is definitely interesting.

I was able to find 1 picture of the interior;  lots of useable space it seems.  Did you get to poke around inside?  


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1019548365254688768


----------



## Dana381 (10 Feb 2022)

Interesting how the RFI mentions they are considering a mixed fleet of either two aircraft types or one manned aircraft fleet and one UAS fleet.


> "ANNEX C – OPTIONS BEING CONSIDERED The options that are being considered during Options Analysis (OA) by the CMMA Project as viable solutions are:
>  Buy MOTS. A single new manned Military off-the Shelf (MOTS) aircraft fleet would be procured that meets all HLMRs, with minimal or no modification required.
>  Buy and Modify MOTS. A single new manned MOTS aircraft fleet would be procured that meets all HLMRs, with moderate change or modification required.
>  Buy COTS and Develop into MOTS. A single new manned Civilian off-the-Shelf (COTS) aircraft fleet would be procured that meets HLMR 4 (Coverage), with major modification required to develop it into a military platform that meets all HLMRs.
> ...



On the interoperability front is there any option other than the P-8? With all of the Five eyes countries using the P-8 it seems the decision has been made for us. That being said I see this project being kicked very far down the road as Boeing is a very bad word in Ottawa right now.

Military systems getting more and more complex and expensive as time goes on the trend seems to be toward less options available for a given system (Fighters, Tanks, Maritime patrol). I am unnerved a little by this as if an enemy finds a chink in the system that they can exploit then the enemy will be at a great advantage as everyone is using the same system. For example, If lets say China finds a way to confuse or hide subs from a P-8 that doesn't work for Lets say the Japanese P-1 suddenly they can hide from almost all the worlds navies. 

I realize the MPA is only one tool in the arsenal and navies employ MPHs and ship borne sub hunting tech however i'm sure some of the technology is shared across platforms. 

This also concerns me with the global adoption of the F-35. With it's three variants the F-35 will gain an extremely high market share of fighters in the frendly skies (maybe 80%+). If an enemy finds a way to beat it NATO will be helpless until a solution can be found.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Feb 2022)

> Copy;  heated laterals is definitely interesting.
> 
> I was able to find 1 picture of the interior;  lots of useable space it seems.  Did you get to poke around inside?



Yeah, it seemed about 50% longer than PAL’s Q300 (FMX), but had less systems than PAL’s.  The mission system wasn’t up, so hard to tell what it was running.  In contrast, PAL was up and running (MS was Thales’ AMASCOS).


----------



## FSTO (10 Feb 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I’m scared we will either (1) buy some Aussie or Kiwi “gently used” P-3s, or the new airframe will have a Fisher Price sticker on it…😐
> 
> But…I’m 51.  Even if they move CRA to age 70…I’ll never have to do conversion to the “new LRP fleet”.  😁


Ha ha! At Bahrain I mentioned to a Kiwi that the RNZAF should complete the Commonwealth Dance of Screw Canada by selling their P3’s to us! It would not surprise me if that is a COA.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Yeah, it seemed about 50% longer than PAL’s Q300 (FMX), but had less systems than PAL’s.  The mission system wasn’t up, so hard to tell what it was running.  In contrast, PAL was up and running (MS was Thales’ AMASCOS).



I could think positively about a “mixed fleet” with both those aircraft; similar to Arcturus/Aurora concept…IMPACT and OUP are examples of times we didn’t need airframes with bomb bays tied up.


----------



## armrdsoul77 (10 Feb 2022)

The C-295 has an MPA variant.









						Airbus presents C295 MPA as 'excellent' solution for surveillance requirements in S. Korea
					

[Courtesy of Airbus]SEOUL -- Airbus, a European aircraft manufacturer, presented its C295 Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) as an "excellent" solution for South Koreas surveillance requirements as it is equipped with state-of-the-art mission systems and comprehensive sensor suites and offers ...




					www.ajudaily.com


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2022)

FSTO said:


> Ha ha! At Bahrain I mentioned to a Kiwi that the RNZAF should complete the Commonwealth Dance of Screw Canada by selling their P3’s to us! It would not surprise me if that is a COA.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Feb 2022)

armrdsoul77 said:


> The C-295 has an MPA variant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Feb 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


>


Don’t forget:

”For the love of God…”


----------



## kev994 (11 Feb 2022)

armrdsoul77 said:


> The C-295 has an MPA variant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Take the ones we already have!!


----------



## Retired AF Guy (11 Feb 2022)

Dana381 said:


> Interesting how the RFI mentions they are considering a mixed fleet of either two aircraft types or one manned aircraft fleet and one UAS fleet.


Considering all the missions listed in the RFI, I would imagine it would be pretty hard to jam all that equipment into one airframe? Plus, trying to train operators in all the different systems.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (11 Feb 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Viking enters Chat Maritime Mission | Viking's Aerial Firefighter


Sounds like something the Coast Guard could use?


----------



## dimsum (11 Feb 2022)

Dana381 said:


> Interesting how the RFI mentions they are considering a mixed fleet of either two aircraft types or one manned aircraft fleet and one UAS fleet.


At this point in the process, it's like brainstorming - they are just broad-brushing what they would like to see.  Those 5 (I think) options pretty much encompass all the options possible.



armrdsoul77 said:


> The C-295 has an MPA variant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, ask FWSAR how well that's going.

And that would be a far easier integration because they aren't hanging weapons or installing sonobuoy tubes.



Retired AF Guy said:


> Considering all the missions listed in the RFI, I would imagine it would be pretty hard to jam all that equipment into one airframe? Plus, trying to train operators in all the different systems.


Aside from ASuW (because the CP-140 can't launch missiles although the P-3 can), it's the exact same mission set as the Aurora right now.  Adding ASuW wouldn't be a big issue, because other nations (USN, ROKN, etc) already did it.  We actually got the hardpoints taken off.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Feb 2022)

armrdsoul77 said:


> De Havilland launches Dash 8 P-4 maritime patrol aircraft - Air Data News
> 
> Or roll on/off maritime patrol kit for a c130 too someone was looking at developing.


There is no such thing as “roll on, roll off”. That is just marketing hype from manufacturers.

In reality, it is more like “roll off, break something expensive, find out that there are no spares, finally get a spare in 22 months, but by then everyone who remembers where all the bits and pieces went have retired or have been posted. Then when you finally do get it all back together, it takes weeks of test flying and troubleshooting to get it all working again”.


Allegedly.


----------



## Czech_pivo (11 Feb 2022)

Looking for some understanding here.
From what I can understand the CP-140 has a much better range and 'time on target' than the P-8, is that correct?  The speed of both aircraft looks to be about the same.  When comparing the P-8 to the Japanese P-1 from a speed and 'time on target' aspect it looks to be the better aircraft for us in those areas.
What other aircraft beside the P-8 is under consideration by us to replace the CP-140.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Feb 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> There is no such thing as “roll on, roll off”. That is just marketing hype from manufacturers.
> 
> In reality, it is more like “roll off, break something expensive, find out that there are no spares, finally get a spare in 22 months, but by then everyone who remembers where all the bits and pieces went have retired or have been posted. Then when you finally do get it all back together, it takes weeks of test flying and troubleshooting to get it all working again”.
> 
> ...


Well…<1hr is pretty Rolly McRollface… 😉


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Feb 2022)

kev994 said:


> Take the ones we already have!!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Feb 2022)

Czech_pivo said:


> Looking for some understanding here.
> From what I can understand the CP-140 has a much better range and 'time on target' than the P-8, is that correct?  The speed of both aircraft looks to be about the same.  When comparing the P-8 to the Japanese P-1 from a speed and 'time on target' aspect it looks to be the better aircraft for us in those areas.
> What other aircraft beside the P-8 is under consideration by us to replace the CP-140.



Range and On Station time;  a bunch of factors there, so it could go either way depending.   The USN P8s are intended to do higher altitudes for things including ASW;  generally speaking you burn more fuel down low, or transitioning from low to high altitudes (eg - down lower to put a sink pattern in, climb to monitor the pattern/do some RMP work, etc).   Generally speaking though, P8s can transit at higher altitudes which allows them better speed/sprint. 

I know there’s a myth the P8 can’t work low;  I’ve seen them at 200’ before;  that’s pretty low.  Not their optimal altitude but they can do it.     

Speed - P8 wins. 

Replacements;  I don’t know and haven’t asked, to be honest.  The last official thing I heard, a few years ago now, was that there were discussions with more than a half dozen companies.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Feb 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Well…<1hr is pretty Rolly McRollface… 😉



These are options we should be looking at IMO.

(Stack those cameras and lead that veh!!). 😬


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Feb 2022)

Radar equipped, good combat record, minimal GHG foot print, easy maintenance, STOL performance, multiple hard points, stealth material construction, minimal basing requirements and excellent low speed loiter.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Feb 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Radar equipped, good combat record, minimal GHG foot print, easy maintenance, STOL performance, multiple hard points, stealth material construction, minimal basing requirements and excellent low speed loiter.



Bathroom and galley leave some room for improvement…


----------



## Spencer100 (11 Feb 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Radar equipped, good combat record, minimal GHG foot print, easy maintenance, STOL performance, multiple hard points, stealth material construction, minimal basing requirements and excellent low speed loiter.


Hey it stopped the Bismark!  So it's a battle proven design!


----------



## armrdsoul77 (11 Feb 2022)

Kawasaki P1 was purpose built for the MPA role(not  converted from a civilian airliner). That has to count for something.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Feb 2022)

armrdsoul77 said:


> Kawasaki P1 was purpose built for the MPA role(not  converted from a civilian airliner). That has to count for something.


Because an RCAF aircraft, like CH-146 Griffon was purpose built for the…..oh, never mind.  😉


----------



## Retired AF Guy (11 Feb 2022)

dimsum said:


> Aside from ASuW (because the CP-140 can't launch missiles although the P-3 can), it's the exact same mission set as the Aurora right now.  Adding ASuW wouldn't be a big issue, because other nations (USN, ROKN, etc) already did it.  We actually got the hardpoints taken off.


Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Feb 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Hey it stopped the Bismark!  So it's a battle proven design!



And sank alot of Italian ships at the first all-aircraft ship-to-ship naval attack in history at Taranto Battle of Taranto - Wikipedia


----------



## Dana381 (16 Feb 2022)

dimsum said:


> Aside from ASuW (because the CP-140 can't launch missiles although the P-3 can), it's the exact same mission set as the Aurora right now.  Adding ASuW wouldn't be a big issue, because other nations (USN, ROKN, etc) already did it.  We actually got the hardpoints taken off.



I don't understand that decision, what was the reason for taking the hard points off? If you don't want to train operators for ASuW fine just font use them. Maybe someday you'll have a need for the hard points and now that is not an option.

Was the weight savings that significant to justify the removal?

Why not train for ASuW on the Aurora, seems like a good capability to have?

Weren't they also able to mount Ata missiles for self defense? I could see how that would be beneficial.

I'm asking because I'm truly curious as to the thought process behind this. I am sure the powers that be had a reason.


----------



## KevinB (16 Feb 2022)

Dana381 said:


> I don't understand that decision, what was the reason for taking the hard points off? If you don't want to train operators for ASuW fine just font use them. Maybe someday you'll have a need for the hard points and now that is not an option.
> 
> Was the weight savings that significant to justify the removal?
> 
> ...


You are talking about the same Military that milled off the 12 O'clock rail off the .338LM C14 Timberwolf,  because only DHTC at the time had inline clip on Night Vision and the Army didn't want anyone thinking it was a possibility.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Feb 2022)

KevinB said:


> You are talking about the same Military that milled off the 12 O'clock rail off the .338LM C14 Timberwolf,  because only DHTC at the time had inline clip on Night Vision and the Army didn't want anyone thinking it was a possibility.


🤦🏻 FFS


----------



## dimsum (16 Feb 2022)

Dana381 said:


> Weren't they also able to mount Ata missiles for self defense? I could see how that would be beneficial.


That was the Nimrod.



> I'm asking because I'm truly curious as to the thought process behind this. I am sure the powers that be had a reason.


----------



## Czech_pivo (16 Feb 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Radar equipped, good combat record, minimal GHG foot print, easy maintenance, STOL performance, multiple hard points, stealth material construction, minimal basing requirements and excellent low speed loiter.


Don't forget that if you turn off the engine it becomes a glider!


----------



## lenaitch (16 Feb 2022)

Retired AF Guy said:


> Sounds like something the Coast Guard could use?


The 215/415 always struck me as a 'nice weather' unpressurized aircraft.  I don't know what's required/desired for aircraft used for open water flying, and couldn't find any specs but: de-ice?  heated?  austere runways?


----------



## armrdsoul77 (16 Feb 2022)

CL215 is tough. Doesn't even need landing gear.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Feb 2022)

…it buffed right out. 😉


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Feb 2022)

Dana381 said:


> I don't understand that decision, what was the reason for taking the hard points off? If you don't want to train operators for ASuW fine just font use them. Maybe someday you'll have a need for the hard points and now that is not an option.
> 
> Was the weight savings that significant to justify the removal?
> 
> ...


 
The 140 decisions to remove wing pylons etc were LONG before my time on the fleet so i won’t guess as to why but politics and money will likely lead you to the answer.  I can state that, to limited point, they were reinstalled on at least 1 aircraft temporarily.

I always like to point out the French Navy enabled some of their ATL2s to designate targets/drop PGMs from their own turret/Bombay.   🙂

ASuW - still trained, we just aren’t “shooters”.  Think of…a sniper team.  1 of them is the spotter; same as our tasking in Iraq and Syria.   We can target, we can talk, but we currently don’t have a trigger to pull (aside from torps…or dropping bags of pennies out of the General Purpose Chute).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Feb 2022)

KevinB said:


> You are talking about the same Military that milled off the 12 O'clock rail off the .338LM C14 Timberwolf,  because only DHTC at the time had inline clip on Night Vision and the Army didn't want anyone thinking it was a possibility.



We need a “sarcastic” insightful emoji…


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Feb 2022)

dimsum said:


>



Best thing I’ll see in the internet today!  _golf clap_


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Feb 2022)

armrdsoul77 said:


> CL215 is tough. Doesn't even need landing gear.



That is a neat feature.   Maybe a better ALOS for an aircraft with a load of water vice a load of Otto fuel in the belly and a bunch of batteries crammed into SLTs aft.   🙂


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Feb 2022)

Czech_pivo said:


> Don't forget that if you turn off the engine it becomes a glider!



Current govt terminology; “carbon-neutral  aerovehicle”.


----------



## calculus (18 Feb 2022)

I'm not underestimating the considerable effort that would be required to convert the A220 ACJ to an MPA (sensors, weapons, etc...), but it would be a made-in-Canada solution, and with a 5650 nm range, and good "tube" size, it certainly seems like it could be feasible. Probably better economics than the proposed A320 NEO MPA. 









						ACJ TwoTwenty | The first ACJ bizjet
					

The ACJ TwoTwenty is the newcomer to the ACJ Family. The TwoTwenty creates a whole new market segment “The Xtra Large Bizjet” and offers customers more personal space and cabin volume for a whole new passenger experience.




					www.acj.airbus.com
				











						Studies on French-German Next Gen MPA to Start this Month - Naval News
					

The future French-German MPA program will be launched in the following week. The first phase of the studies will focus on the mission system.




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## KevinB (18 Feb 2022)

calculus said:


> I'm not underestimating the considerable effort that would be required to convert the A220 ACJ to an MPA (sensors, weapons, etc...), but it would be a made-in-Canada solution, and with a 5650 nm range, and good "tube" size, it certainly seems like it could be feasible. Probably better economics than the proposed A320 NEO MPA.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How is Airbus a made in Canada solution?


----------



## calculus (18 Feb 2022)

KevinB said:


> How is Airbus a made in Canada solution?


Built in Montreal. The A220 is the previously known Bombardier C-Series.









						Airbus A220 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				












						The history of the Airbus A220, the controversial plane Boeing tried to keep out of the US
					

In the years since the aircraft was announced, controversy has shaped the future of the plane formerly known as the Bombardier CSeries.




					www.businessinsider.com


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Feb 2022)

KevinB said:


> You are talking about the same Military that milled off the 12 O'clock rail off the .338LM C14 Timberwolf,  because only DHTC at the time had inline clip on Night Vision and the Army didn't want anyone thinking it was a possibility.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Feb 2022)

calculus said:


> I'm not underestimating the considerable effort that would be required to convert the A220 ACJ to an MPA (sensors, weapons, etc...), but it would be a made-in-Canada solution, and with a 5650 nm range, and good "tube" size, it certainly seems like it could be feasible. Probably better economics than the proposed A320 NEO MPA.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why set ourselves up with another orphans fleet?

People discount the “common parts” aspect in Operations.   One particular Det I was on, our Maint PUK arrived after we were in theatre.  We’d had a very significant transit to our final stop, and almost as soon as we got there, we were EVACing for significant weather to another landmass.  When we landed, the aircraft was U/S on the A check.  Luckily, we were co-located with both Aussie and Kiwi P-3 Dets and the techs we had with us (we always take some on the Aurora on away trips) were able to beg/borrow the parts and tools we needed and we were serviceable again.  A day later, the weather we were bravely running away from turned north towards us and we had to EVAC again to a second location.  After that weather was gone, we were able to make it back to the DOB which was a fair distance away now.  Most of that was able to happen because of common parts/tools. 

In either of those situations, we would not have time for a MRP or parts mule to be put into motion.

Flyaway/pack up maintenance kit can’t contain absolutes everything when you’re limited by airlift capability (which the CAF is); being able to borrow from Allies in times of need is important, IMO.

Running from sig storms, getting sensors on an area, putting weapons in the water, conducting SAR ops…any of those things could NOT happen when really needed (the SAR piece isn’t made up, I’ve been on crews that were re-tasked off operational missions to a SAR mission).

Re one the links;  Germany is buying P-8s to replace their P-3s.   France upgraded their Atlantiques.









						Boeing gets nod to start building Germany’s P-8 anti-submarine aircraft
					

Boeing has inked a contract with the U.S. Navy to produce five P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance and anti-submarine aircraft destined for the German sea service.




					www.defensenews.com
				












						French Navy Receives Sixth Upgraded ATL2 Maritime Patrol Aircraft - Naval News
					

The French DGA took delivery of the sixth Atlantique 2 (ATL2) standard 6 MPA on December 21, 2021 and delivered it to the French Navy.




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## KevinB (21 Feb 2022)

calculus said:


> Built in Montreal. The A220 is the previously known Bombardier C-Series.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh yes, I forgot about another great absorption...


----------



## dimsum (21 Feb 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> In either of those situations, we would not have time for a MRP or parts mule to be put into motion.
> 
> Flyaway/pack up maintenance kit can’t contain absolutes everything when you’re limited by airlift capability (which the CAF is); being able to borrow from Allies in times of need is important, IMO.


Bingo.


----------



## FSTO (21 Feb 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Why set ourselves up with another orphans fleet?
> 
> People discount the “common parts” aspect in Operations.   One particular Det I was on, our Maint PUK arrived after we were in theatre.  We’d had a very significant transit to our final stop, and almost as soon as we got there, we were EVACing for significant weather to another landmass.  When we landed, the aircraft was U/S on the A check.  Luckily, we were co-located with both Aussie and Kiwi P-3 Dets and the techs we had with us (we always take some on the Aurora on away trips) were able to beg/borrow the parts and tools we needed and we were serviceable again.  A day later, the weather we were bravely running away from turned north towards us and we had to EVAC again to a second location.  After that weather was gone, we were able to make it back to the DOB which was a fair distance away now.  Most of that was able to happen because of common parts/tools.
> 
> ...


Orphan Fleets for $500.00 Alex!

Cause that's the way we roll Canada!


----------



## MilEME09 (21 Feb 2022)

FSTO said:


> Orphan Fleets for $500.00 Alex!
> 
> Cause that's the way we roll Canada!


Cause our procurement programs are meant for giving jobs to bureaucrats, not delivering capabilities.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Feb 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> Cause our procurement programs are meant for winning votes from a capricious and fickle electorate giving jobs to bureaucrats, not delivering capabilities.



There, FTFY


----------



## calculus (6 Apr 2022)

Interesting article in Skies on the P8, and it's relevance to Canada's CP-140 replacement project (Canadian Multi-mission Aircraft project):









						Skies Magazine
					

Skies is your premier source of North American aviation news. We deliver exclusive content that is missing from other industry magazines, including insightful stories, news, reports and feature profiles from all sectors of aviation: business, private, commercial, military, cargo, maintenance...




					skiesmag.com
				









						Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft - Defence Capabilities Blueprint
					

Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft - Defence Capabilities Blueprint




					dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca
				




Wonder if this might get accelerated if we see some movement towards the 2% GDP goal in tomorrow's budget?


----------



## Dale Denton (6 Apr 2022)

I wonder more about the political aspect of the P-8, please correct me if i'm wrong:

Boeing, who offers the only logical choice for the CP-140 replacement is in a unique position. So to fulfil this project, the gov't would have to do business with a company it doesn't want to, in a file it doesn't really care about. 

Boeing must know this, and if it really wants this contract bad, it would probably have to offer some fantastic terms to buy back CDN gov't approval, reducing profits. So it would take either the gov't to care about this project enough to give Boeing money to have P-8s, or Boeing would have to fight hard for a contract for a small fleet to an apathetic/unhappy customer.

I don't see a way forward here. Unless you went all-out on RPAS and bought the Seaguardian (or whatever its called) but lose capability.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Apr 2022)

…or Uncle Sam said, “Well, how’s this for you?  You guys buy in to NORAD renewal and NATO 2% and buy the F-35…oh, by the way, Boeing’s sorry about the Bombardier C-Series thing….oh, and buy the P-8!”


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Apr 2022)

All out RPAs would not meet the requirements in the CMMA blueprint linked above which states several times it must be a manned platform.  Unmanned platforms with top notch sensors still can’t match a manned system that also has X or XX sets of eyes looking out as well.

Canada said it wouldn’t buy the F35.   I wouldn’t count the P-8 out.  We went P-3 like many of our Allies did…

I don’t know if the P-8 is the best for us, initially I am more concerned with “capabilities” than I am platform.  Secondly I am more concerned about the number of replacement airframes - 14 is not enough.  I am hoping we increase the size of the LRP fleet.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Apr 2022)

I note that when the Super Hornet was eliminated from Canada's Next Generation Fighter competition there were... crickets from Boeing.  Boeing is also facing the imminent shutdown of the P8 line - in 2025 (U.S. Navy official sees more orders for Boeing P-8A in coming months)

Methinks playing nice is a strategic move on Boeing's part, to encourage Canada to buy more 737s..


(Heck, if Canada is growing defence capital spending, why not retire a dozen Griffons and buy another 10 Chinooks for Edmonton?)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Apr 2022)

It is starting to feel like we're the only kids not wearing pin-stripe jeans to the dance (to jump back to my junior high days for a comparision)...









						First Norwegian P-8A Arrives Home - Overt Defense
					

A Norwegian P-8A Poseidon touched down in Norway for the first time on February 24th.




					www.overtdefense.com
				












						Boeing begins assembly of first P-8A Poseidon for New Zealand
					

Boeing's Poseidon program has reached a new key milestone with the assembly of the first P-8A Maritime Patrol Aircraft for New Zealand. Boeing P-8A team members and Spirit AeroSystems employees have laid the keel beam for New Zealand’s first P-8A. This process, also called ‘keeling,’ was done at...




					defence-blog.com


----------



## FSTO (7 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> It is starting to feel like we're the only kids not wearing pin-stripe jeans to the dance (to jump back to my junior high days for a comparision)...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We’ll buy the Norwegian and Kiwi P3’s instead.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Apr 2022)

FSTO said:


> We’ll buy the Norwegian and Kiwi P3’s instead.


----------



## dimsum (7 Apr 2022)

FSTO said:


> We’ll buy the Norwegian and Kiwi P3’s instead.


_Flight Engineers like this comment_

But with the Germans also getting P-8s, realistically the only NATO countries not flying them but have MPA fleets are France (Atlantique 2) and Turkey (CN-235).









						Germany bought the 5 P-8A Poseidon in order to replace its P-3C Orion
					

Today, the US Navy,  awarded Boeing a production contract for five P-8A Poseidon aircraft for the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr). The first deliveries are sc




					www.aviacionline.com


----------



## CBH99 (7 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> It is starting to feel like we're the only kids not wearing pin-stripe jeans to the dance (to jump back to my junior high days for a comparision)...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The first part of this post that stood out was ‘pin striped jeans’ and a sad face…

I just googled them.  Goodness gracious…


----------



## SupersonicMax (7 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


>


Then this:









						C295 Maritime Patrol Aircraft
					

The C295 MPA is a multirole maritime patrol aircraft derived from the C295 military transport aircraft. It has been developed…




					www.naval-technology.com
				




Harmonize the FWSAR fleet with the « L »RP fleet!

_ducks for cover_


----------



## CBH99 (7 Apr 2022)

dapaterson said:


> I note that when the Super Hornet was eliminated from Canada's Next Generation Fighter competition there were... crickets from Boeing.  Boeing is also facing the imminent shutdown of the P8 line - in 2025 (U.S. Navy official sees more orders for Boeing P-8A in coming months)
> 
> Methinks playing nice is a strategic move on Boeing's part, to encourage Canada to buy more 737s..
> 
> ...


While the momentum behind the initial idea to buy 24 Super Hornets quickly died down after Boeing’s poorly led spat with the GoC, quite a few of us dismissed it as no big deal for Boeing.

And at the time, it really wasn’t.  The Super Hornet line was going strong beefing up/replacing the USN’s inventory with 650 aircraft, plus spares.  As aircraft were coming up to their 6000hr mark, Boeing had a steady stream of jets coming in needing to be refurbished and upgraded.  

But that work has dried up immensely, with the F-35 coming online more and more.  

The KC-46 program isn’t without significant challenges - all of which were self created, and which Boeing is literally eating itself as it tries to rectify the issues.  

737 sales slumped dramatically for a while due to the 737 Max situation.  

The C-17 line is closed.  



Boeing isn’t making a big deal about our fighter selection because current management seems to realize they had a certain amount of currency that could be allotted to such issues, and that was wasted by previous management.  

They _have_ to play nice with the AH-64 and F-15EX programs the only military programs currently pulling their weight and then some.   


_Genuinely like the idea of retiring a dozen Griffons and replacing them with 10 Chinooks for Edmonton.  Would be great to have a decent life capability here on the other side of the country, and we could keep the Griffon airframes in storage rather than divest entirely._


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Apr 2022)

One suspects a Bombardier bizjet platform (if company still building them at the end of the decade) would be a preferred solution for Canadian gov't:

1) From Bombardier:








						Maritime Surveillance
					

With their endurance, reliability and class-leading range, Bombardier jets are ideal for maritime surveillance.




					specializedaircraft.bombardier.com
				




2) Saab seems to have given up its Bombardier airframe Swordfish MPA:








						Saab puts marketing effort for Swordfish maritime plane on hiatus
					

Why is Saab stepping away from its sub-hunting aircraft concept?




					www.defensenews.com
				




Mark Collins


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Then this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Apr 2022)

MarkOttawa said:


> One suspects a Bombardier bizjet platform (if company still building them at the end of the decade) would be a preferred solution for Canadian gov't:
> 
> 1) From Bombardier:
> 
> ...



They are small airframes, so my initial concern would be endurance and "all up weight";  MPAs need to be able to haul around lots of search and kill stores and fuel for abilty to remain ONSTA (on station).  

Our current and near-future torps don't allow for external carriage (temperature concerns).  Also, wing/exeternal stores will induce drag, drag reduces ONSTA and speed. 

For those main reasons...my initial thought is "Pass".  I'd give them a look for maritime surveillance perhaps, but we don't have the $ or personnel for specialized fleets like that.  Which is exactly Bombardier is suggesting their platform is good for;  " ideal for maritime surveillance".  We need more than just that from the fleet.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Apr 2022)

CBH99 said:


> The first part of this post that stood out was ‘pin striped jeans’ and a sad face…
> 
> I just googled them.  Goodness gracious…



But back in the 80s, you were stylin' if  you had a rugby shirt, pin stripe jeans and a pair of (untied) Kodiak work boots on.  Imagine...at the dance....Billy Jean starts playin'...._your time has come.  (* collar up on the rugby shirt, of course)_


----------



## Weinie (7 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> But back in the 80s, you were stylin' if  you had a rugby shirt, pin stripe jeans and a pair of (untied) Kodiak work boots on.  Imagine...at the dance....Billy Jean starts playin'...._your time has come.  (* collar up on the rugby shirt, of course)_


I resemble the above mentioned stylin’ guy. Mmmmmmmmm………………Kodiaks.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Apr 2022)

I'll also reach back to Pages 2 & 3 of this thread....the P4.  I still think this one is deserving of a serious look.









						Boeing to offer P-8 as CP-140 Replacement
					

I'm not sure the Japanese are willing (or allowed) to export that.  Japan has been eagerly trying to find an export customer for P-1 for many years. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-uk-arms-exclusive-idUSKBN0KG0WG20150107  I've been impressed by P-1 capabilities, but I think spares/parts...




					army.ca


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Apr 2022)

Weinie said:


> I resemble the above mentioned stylin’ guy. Mmmmmmmmm………………Kodiaks.



There was the expectation to "scuff your heels" when you walked.  Super-sized the _kewl _factor!


----------



## Weinie (7 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> There was the expectation to "scuff your heels" when you walked.  Super-sized the _kewl _factor!


The scuffing came as a second order effect from the fact they were untied. LMAO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Apr 2022)

Weinie said:


> The scuffing came as a second order effect from the fact they were untied. LMAO.



I'm glad someone else knows what this was all about!  I grew up in Prince County, PEI and after leaving realized...we weren't exactly caught up to...the rest of Canada/the world.  😁


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Apr 2022)

I bet Boeing wishes they just mothballed the C17 production line, I bet they could easily sell another 10 right about now.


----------



## Weinie (7 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I'm glad someone else knows what this was all about!  I grew up in Prince County, PEI and after leaving realized...we weren't exactly caught up to...the rest of Canada/the world.  😁


Amherst, N.S. ,at one time the teenage pregnancy capital of the world ( I suspect that pin-striped jeans and Kodiak work boots were a major contributor to that stat)


----------



## Weinie (7 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I'm glad someone else knows what this was all about!  I grew up in Prince County, PEI and after leaving realized...we weren't exactly caught up to...the rest of Canada/the world.  😁


Or maybe they weren't caught up to us.   

Anyways, back on track for this thread. I have learned a lot.


----------



## CBH99 (7 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> But back in the 80s, you were stylin' if  you had a rugby shirt, pin stripe jeans and a pair of (untied) Kodiak work boots on.  Imagine...at the dance....Billy Jean starts playin'...._your time has come.  (* collar up on the rugby shirt, of course)_


_Nervously looking around the room with a panicked look, mixed with sheer cringe…_

“Ah yes!  The topic!  Thank Heavens!”


----------



## lenaitch (7 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> They are small airframes, so my initial concern would be endurance and "all up weight";  MPAs need to be able to haul around lots of search and kill stores and fuel for abilty to remain ONSTA (on station).
> 
> *Our current and near-future torps don't allow for external carriage (temperature concerns).  Also, wing/exeternal stores will induce drag, drag reduces ONSTA and speed.*
> 
> For those main reasons...my initial thought is "Pass".  I'd give them a look for maritime surveillance perhaps, but we don't have the $ or personnel for specialized fleets like that.  Which is exactly Bombardier is suggesting their platform is good for;  " ideal for maritime surveillance".  We need more than just that from the fleet.


What do (can) the Cyclones carry?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Apr 2022)

lenaitch said:


> What do (can) the Cyclones carry?



The same torps;  but, they don't fly at the higher altitudes that Aurora's transit at typically (for ballpark calculations, air temp drops about 2 degrees per 1000 of altitude).


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1152594012273954819


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Apr 2022)

lenaitch said:


> What do (can) the Cyclones carry?


Cyclones carry the same torpedo, but don‘t fly to the scene of action at FL 250, where the temperature outside is -25C. At least.

edit: what EITS, said.


----------



## lenaitch (8 Apr 2022)

^ Tnx both.  Makes total sense.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Apr 2022)

Just to add, this is why I say "and future torps".









						Canada to spend $500M on U.S. anti-submarine torpedo
					

The Canadian government is poised to spend more than half a billion dollars on new anti-submarine torpedoes after the U.S. State Department approved the deal last month.



					vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca


----------



## dimsum (8 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Just to add, this is why I say "and future torps".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Next generation"    



> Raytheon, the co-developer of the MK-54 alongside the U.S. Navy, began producing the lightweight torpedo in 2004.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Apr 2022)

H


dimsum said:


> "Next generation"


Hey, they are “proven”!


----------



## Weinie (8 Apr 2022)

dimsum said:


> "Next generation"


How about “New to us”


----------



## GR66 (8 Apr 2022)

dimsum said:


> "Next generation"


Hey....at least the production date starts with a "2"


----------



## dimsum (8 Apr 2022)

GR66 said:


> Hey....at least the production date starts with a "2"


...for parts of it.  I didn't even realize that the Mk-54 is essentially a kit bolted onto a Mk-46.  



> At roughly $1.2 million apiece, the kits include enhanced guidance systems and improved counter-countermeasures that will convert Canada’s existing arsenal of Cold War-era MK-46 torpedoes into the modern MK-54 configuration.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Apr 2022)

dimsum said:


> "Next generation"



You're just experiencing _modern equipment_ differently!  😁


----------



## GK .Dundas (8 Apr 2022)

dimsum said:


> ...for parts of it.  I didn't even realize that the Mk-54 is essentially a kit bolted onto a Mk.46 .


Primarily because the USN didn't want to pay the cost of the ultra high tech mk. 50.Which is even more super duper then the mk. 54 at an even more super duper price.


----------



## GK .Dundas (8 Apr 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> I bet Boeing wishes they just mothballed the C17 production line, I bet they could easily sell another 10 right about now.


50 +


----------



## GK .Dundas (8 Apr 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> 50 +


To be honest the US could probably use the production line reopened. 
And I could honestly say the French after their experience in Mali probably wouldn't mind some to supplement their A 400s.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Apr 2022)

Earlier in this thread, I was saying "...people discount the common parts...” aspect to fleets in NATO/with Allies.









						Boeing to offer P-8 as CP-140 Replacement
					

You are talking about the same Military that milled off the 12 O'clock rail off the .338LM C14 Timberwolf,  because only DHTC at the time had inline clip on Night Vision and the Army didn't want anyone thinking it was a possibility.  🤦🏻 FFS




					army.ca
				




There's a recent article about Dynamic Manta in The Aurora Newspaper FB page that echos what I'd said.






						Log in or sign up to view
					

See posts, photos and more on Facebook.




					www.facebook.com
				






			https://www.auroranewspaper.com/
		


Ex DYNAMIC MANTA kicked off this year February 18. The NATO-led exercise is the largest annual ex of its kind, vital to sharpen the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) skills of participating units in real world operations. This year the Royal Canadian Air Force detachment worked directly alongside the Italians and Germans, while also operating closely with American, British, French and Greek military units.

The aim of the ex is to provide training opportunities for units at the tactical level, with a focus on air subsurface cooperation that includes coordinated ASW operations. This year’s ex provided valuable opportunities to crews from both 407 and 405 (Long Range Patrol) squadrons to improve their ASW skills while exercising interoperability among NATO allies. Using current and emerging tactical doctrine, the crews were able to locate, track and attack opposing submarines while providing support to a friendly surface fleet.

The maintenance team was kept busy around the clock with a nose landing gear replacement, propeller blade boot repair and multiple flight control snags. *A constant flow of maple syrup to our German partners, operating their P3 next to our CP140s, helped obtain the parts we needed until the RCAF C17 arrived!*

The last part isn't exactly flattering on the RCAF and CAF in more than one context.  (1) if there had been no allies P-3s in location, we would have been SOL (2) there is a seriously lack of air transport capability in the RCAF that can't keep up with demand (this isn't new and isn't limited to exercises, I've seen this happen before on deployments).


----------



## MTShaw (10 Apr 2022)

Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft - Defence Capabilities Blueprint
					

Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft - Defence Capabilities Blueprint




					dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca


----------



## dimsum (10 Apr 2022)

MTShaw said:


> Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft - Defence Capabilities Blueprint
> 
> 
> Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft - Defence Capabilities Blueprint
> ...


Yeah...


*2021/2022* Start Options Analysis
*2023/2024* Start Definition
*2027/2028* Start Implementation
*2032/2033* Initial Delivery
*2037/2038* Final Delivery


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Apr 2022)

* Subject to change.


----------



## suffolkowner (10 Apr 2022)

initial delivery 10 yrs from now JC!


----------



## MTShaw (10 Apr 2022)

dimsum said:


> Yeah...
> 
> 
> *2021/2022* Start Options Analysis
> ...


Sorry


----------



## Dale Denton (10 Apr 2022)

Anyone know why Australia cancelled their Reaper buy last minute? Has the use of drones and UAVs dramatically changed since their GWOT maturity to something new?

Should we just bite the bullet and buy larger fleet of P-8s for ASW, but change RPAS to something (fashionable) TB-2 sized and focused on the north?

Is there some way to have P-8s to control or work together with UAVs? Similar to Loyal Wingman but for ASW?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Apr 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> * Subject to change.



Nominated for the "_Most Hilarious_!!!" and "_Most Accurate_!!" posts for the 2022 Army.Ca H & A ceremonies....


----------



## dimsum (10 Apr 2022)

Dale Denton said:


> Anyone know why Australia cancelled their Reaper buy last minute?



Speaking to _Janes_ , a DoD spokesperson said that the decision was made based on the need to prioritise cyber security.






						Australia scraps MQ-9B SkyGuardian project
					

Australia has scrapped its Project Air 7003, a multimillion-dollar programme, which was conceived to strengthen the country's intelligence, surveillance, and...



					www.janes.com
				






Dale Denton said:


> Has the use of drones and UAVs dramatically changed since their GWOT maturity to something new?


The capabilities are always evolving.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Apr 2022)

Dale Denton said:


> Should we just bite the bullet and buy larger fleet of P-8s for ASW, but change and buy RPAS to include something MALE (eg - MQ-9) and HALE (eg RQ-4/BAMS-D) and focus on significant domestic and international operations? the north?



Certainly, we should!!  



> Is there some way to have P-8s to control or work together with UAVs? Similar to Loyal Wingman but for ASW?



Dimsum...you track this stuff better than most I think?


----------



## dimsum (10 Apr 2022)

Dale Denton said:


> Is there some way to have P-8s to control or work together with UAVs? Similar to Loyal Wingman but for ASW?



I'd be shocked if Boeing, etc aren't working on it.


----------



## Underway (10 Apr 2022)

dimsum said:


> ...for parts of it.  I didn't even realize that the Mk-54 is essentially a kit bolted onto a Mk-46.


Basically, you pull out everything forward of the propellor and add in new stuff, including a little bit of length.  I suppose if you tear down a house and leave up only one original wall it counts as a renovation right?



Dale Denton said:


> Anyone know why Australia cancelled their Reaper buy last minute? Has the use of drones and UAVs dramatically changed since their GWOT maturity to something new?
> 
> Should we just bite the bullet and buy larger fleet of P-8s for ASW, but change RPAS to something (fashionable) TB-2 sized and focused on the north?
> 
> Is there some way to have P-8s to control or work together with UAVs? Similar to Loyal Wingman but for ASW?


I can only infer from this that Australia's cybersecurity is contained within their military.  In Canada, it's its own organization with its own funding, and the standards are to be followed by the Military.  Offensive cyber warfare however is a military thing.  CSEC and others work at it from a different angle.  They all talk to each other.

As for the Loyal Wingman I was coming to this thread to ask the question.  @Eye In The Sky in your experience what could a Loyal Wingman type do that would help?  Just drop sonobuoys in a pattern for you?  Or other stuff?


----------



## dimsum (10 Apr 2022)

Underway said:


> I can only infer from this that Australia's cybersecurity is contained within their military. In Canada, it's its own organization with its own funding, and the standards are to be followed by the Military. Offensive cyber warfare however is a military thing. CSEC and others work at it from a different angle. They all talk to each other.



Not quite.  It's similar to Canada - the lead organization is the Australian Signals Directorate.






						About | Australian Signals Directorate
					






					www.asd.gov.au
				






Underway said:


> As for the Loyal Wingman I was coming to this thread to ask the question. @Eye In The Sky in your experience what could a Loyal Wingman type do that would help? Just drop sonobuoys in a pattern for you? Or other stuff?


Complete WAG, but probably more monitoring of said pattern.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Apr 2022)

Underway said:


> As for the Loyal Wingman I was coming to this thread to ask the question.  @Eye In The Sky in your experience what could a Loyal Wingman type do that would help?  Just drop sonobuoys in a pattern for you?  Or other stuff?



To add to Dimsums mention of assisting in monitoring the sono field...in theory, thinking like a dry sensor type, put a decent surface search radar on it, and a EOIR ball....you'd be able to extend those 'sensor bubbles' and do concurrent "on tops" of anything you might want to investigate.   These seem, to me at least, as enablers/enhances in the "detect/deter" game.  I'd take gas over the weight of any ESM system...

I'd even look at putting a MAD system on the RPAs, or 1 on every 2 or 3 systems, but only if the trade off in fuel/endurance is minimal.  I think MSA (multi-static acoustics) is the future;  MAD is a "feel good/confirmatory" sensor, not a great "search" sensor.  My 2 cents, which is worth about 1 cent.  

 I see modern airborne ASW going the way the USN is moving/have moved to;  higher altitude flight profile for the majority of the time.  Descending and climbing (1) reduces endurance (fuel burn) and (2) decreases RF range (monitoring the pattern).  Better to keep the mothership up high....(this is just me thinking off the top of my head about TTPs, while sitting here).

My quick/dirty opinion on the current P8 layout (I've been in them), there would be room for a dual console (I'm picturing the TWC on the Cyclone) to add in a workstation setup for an 2 x additional "AES OPs" to operate 2 x ASW "wingpersons";  with the speed things happen in ASW, I'd want direct control of those systems, with next-to-zero time delay and complete OPCON to the TAC/Skipper on the mothership.  Off the top of my head, I am visualizing 1 x MPA with 2 x Wing"person"'s.

Search stores;  MPA and RPA carried and dispensed.   Kill stores;  MPA only (initially).  v1 to v2 T & E would include 'remote kill stores' options.

Thru AAR and larger crew sizes, return our LRP aircraft to the crew day length the Argus crew had.  They did, we could do it again.

Again...me completely spitballing off the top my head as I type (I wish we were doing this now, and I was part of the project!).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Apr 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> initial delivery 10 yrs from now JC!



I've been saying, I will be CRA long before this happens (51 years old now).  I've also watched the MH and Fighter projects swirl and swirl...

Keep in mind, Block 4 is not fleet-wide yet for the '140; there's been no return on investment on that project yet.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Keep in mind, Block 4 is not fleet-wide yet for the '140; there's been no return on investment on that project yet.


🧠

I don’t think our politicians have enough fortitude to follow Kenny Rogers’ wise words…particularly if it comes to impacting Canada’s ‘Industrial Troika’. (Bombardier-IMP-Irving)


----------



## Spencer100 (12 Apr 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> 🧠
> 
> I don’t think our politicians have enough fortitude to follow Kenny Rogers’ wise words…particularly if it comes to impacting Canada’s ‘Industrial Troika’. (Bombardier-IMP-Irving)


Troika?  Its Dos Industrial now.  The bomber is dead.  Just some Biz jets. On they will sell a couple to the gov going forward but those sales are meaning less.  They are selling in 10 and twenty job lots to leasing companies.  Their chance to save Bombardier was when the government told Boeing to pound salt on the F-18E.  (I would never have done this but this would have been the solution) The gov at that time should have bought a bunch of CS100's (use them for everything VIP, transport, MPA, etc) and saved the program instead they just gave it Airbus.  And then Bombardier exploded anyways.  So now the Gov is pissed off at Boeing, the RCAF got used F-18, The taxpayer lost money spent on the CS100.  And they didn't save the company in the end.  And now the RCAF are getting the F-35 in end. Good job!  

So to recap Boeing is having trouble selling the P-8 to RCAF, The government is buying the F-35 anyways but years late, and Bombardier as world prime OEM is gone.  So not one good outcome.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Apr 2022)

I’m not sure the issue is selling P-8 to the *RCAF*…

I’d take a “pass” on the CS100 MPA.  It doesn’t exist and would be orphan fleet crap again.


----------



## suffolkowner (13 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I've been saying, I will be CRA long before this happens (51 years old now).  I've also watched the MH and Fighter projects swirl and swirl...
> 
> Keep in mind, Block 4 is not fleet-wide yet for the '140; there's been no return on investment on that project yet.*s*


saw this for the Polaris replacement seems a little long to IOC for an already chosen in use platform. Seems questionable that the Polaris have another 6/7 years in them what with all the issues they seem to continually have. Come on Justin pull the trigger you know you want a new Canada ONE​​4. Implementation​
Request for Proposal: Winter 2022
Implementation Phase: 2023
Initial Operational Capability: 2028/2029
Final Operational Capability: 2030/2031

couldnt figure out how to get rid of bold (‘sort of’ mod fixed 😉)


----------



## dapaterson (13 Apr 2022)

How is IOC defined?


----------



## suffolkowner (13 Apr 2022)

dapaterson said:


> How is IOC defined?


Good question is there a standard definition across the CAF or RCAF?


----------



## dimsum (13 Apr 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> Good question is there a standard definition across the CAF or RCAF?


I don't think so.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Apr 2022)

dapaterson said:


> How is IOC defined?


Usually when the 6th CAF project manager is posted in for their 2 year attempt at kicking cans down the road...


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Apr 2022)

dapaterson said:


> How is IOC defined?


Yes.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Apr 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> I do not think that you understand air weapons.
> 
> I will leave it at that.


Pretty sure any RCAF aircraft can carry sternly-worded letters and convening orders…


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Apr 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> Good question is there a standard definition across the CAF or RCAF?


You can’t have a one-size-fits-all definition for IOC.  The criteria that define IOC need to be tailored to specific capabilities/projects.


----------



## KevinB (13 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> You can’t have a one-size-fits-all definition for IOC.  The criteria that define IOC need to be tailored to specific capabilities/projects.


Why? 
 I’m solely asking because down here we have timetables and pathways for exactly that.  

I came across a paper written by a CAF Major about various process in this. 


			https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/23/286/Balkaran.pdf


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Apr 2022)

KevinB said:


> Why?
> I’m solely asking because down here we have timetables and pathways for exactly that.
> 
> I came across a paper written by a CAF Major about various process in this.
> ...


For a fighter, IOC may mean, in part, being capable to employ X missile. Doesn’t quite work for a tank.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Apr 2022)

KevinB said:


> Why?
> I’m solely asking because down here we have timetables and pathways for exactly that.
> 
> I came across a paper written by a CAF Major about various process in this.
> ...


Absolutely correct, it is a defined term. 

IOC: The minimum ability to effectively employ a new or improved capability for which adequate infrastructure, training, staffing and support is in place, both for the new capability and the organization that is employing it.  (Project Approval Directive) 

What that means specifically for each project is perhaps what you mean, @SupersonicMax, but what an IOC provides and needs to do so, is qualified by definition. 

One aspect the PAD didn’t go into in too much detail is what kind of capability can be establied prior to IOC/FOC.  In some cases, an ‘initial capability’ was defined in a case by case basis for some projects.  In all cases that I know where ‘initial capability’ was referred to, it was a specific qualification and quantification of capabilities that required notable, temporary augmentation to the project during the early portion of the IMPL phase.


----------



## KevinB (13 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> For a fighter, IOC may mean, in part, being capable to employ X missile. Doesn’t quite work for a tank.


I get that.   But I’m talking about timeframes and milestones. 
   You can’t use boilerplate (well you can but it totally FUBAR stuff), and when things also have R&D components that offer leads to drift based on TRL.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Apr 2022)

KevinB said:


> I get that.   But I’m talking about timeframes and milestones.
> You can’t use boilerplate (well you can but it totally FUBAR stuff), and when things also have R&D components that offer leads to drift based on TRL.


Canada could do well to consider what its allies do in that realm of acqusition.  It doesn’t bridge lower (1-3) to  mid-stage TRLs (4-6) well into the near-operational stage (7-9) for implementation into production capabilities. ADM(S&T)/DRDC does a great job in the mids (4-6), but seems content there and has a hard time working with operators to push through the latter TRLs.  Maybe worth seeing how the US addresses the TRL 7-9 world with DARPA and IDIQ contracts to probe the art of the technologically and operationally ‘doable’ before going full-on acquire?


----------



## KevinB (13 Apr 2022)

We do a terrible job on small $ ACAT III programs, in my experience. 
   There is often an over expectation of TRL, when a TRL 3-4 system is reported to be 7+

In all services there seems to be an acceptable belief that if it’s an ACAT III that if we botch it, we can just get something else later.  

I don’t have a lot of time with ACAT II and I programs, but they seem to be handled significantly better - but I may be missing the forest from the trees.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Apr 2022)

KevinB said:


> We do a terrible job on small $ ACAT III programs, in my experience.
> There is often an over expectation of TRL, when a TRL 3-4 system is reported to be 7+
> 
> In all services there seems to be an acceptable belief that if it’s an ACAT III that if we botch it, we can just get something else later.
> ...


Canada doesn’t do much better with MRs, if it’s any consolation. Yeah, Is and IIs will generally be better done in that there’s more ‘discipline’ (or at least an established process to be followed, for good or bad), especially for an MDAP (essential similar to Canada MCP - major capital project). As well, at least with the ACaT Is and IIs, the State by State participation in MDAPs is a known quantity m/thing, while regionalism and the fluid nature of ITB and VP policy in Canada contributes to more uncertainty and ‘lack of unity of effort’ shall we say.


----------



## Underway (13 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> To add to Dimsums mention of assisting in monitoring the sono field...in theory, thinking like a dry sensor type, put a decent surface search radar on it, and a EOIR ball....you'd be able to extend those 'sensor bubbles' and do concurrent "on tops" of anything you might want to investigate.   These seem, to me at least, as enablers/enhances in the "detect/deter" game.  I'd take gas over the weight of any ESM system...
> 
> I'd even look at putting a MAD system on the RPAs, or 1 on every 2 or 3 systems, but only if the trade off in fuel/endurance is minimal.  I think MSA (multi-static acoustics) is the future;  MAD is a "feel good/confirmatory" sensor, not a great "search" sensor.  My 2 cents, which is worth about 1 cent.
> 
> ...



So RPA(AASW) would need
-search stores
-EOIR, surface search radar
-perhaps MAD on a few systems
-Ability to do a handshake OPCON between the ground station and MPA for real-time control of the asset


Employment would look like
-MPA up high to oversee the situation
-RPA is used to deploy search stores down low (increases time in the air for the MPA up high)
-RPA increases sensor bubble
-MPA used to do any weapons deployment

I could see one or two RPA deploying a pattern (even without OPCON on the MPA) while the MPA stands off as the "white hat" supervising and looking out.  Has the advantage of the RPA going perhaps into a less permissible environment while the MPA stays outside of it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Apr 2022)

That is a decent start point for employment.  I’m also a firm believer MPAs should have MAD, the weight trade off nowadays for a MPA is negligible.   I didn’t include ESM because I haven’t looked at “lightweight” systems.  

Also some Limitations of RPAs to consider;  weather degrades them (icing, winds).  Most of them operate fairly high - I have no data/clue on fuel burn at the 5000’ and below altitudes.  Sono’s (assuming G size) would be carried externally - what this would look like and how it would add to drag/fuel burn is unknown. 

Range - how far away from land would they be employed?  Is there a need for a RPA “carrier/short deck”?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Apr 2022)

One thing I’d love to see; Sonos that are programmable airborne.  That would really improve the usefulness of a RPA carrying stores.


----------



## dimsum (13 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Range - how far away from land would they be employed? Is there a need for a RPA “carrier/short deck”?


Depends if you're expecting LOS, BLOS, etc. 

Physical range/combat radius might mean you don't need to deploy from ships - an MQ-9 flew from Grand Forks ND to 78N, circled around a bit, and returned for a 25.5h mission last Sep.  Granted its endurance will be lower with weapons, etc but still probably enough to deploy from the same bases as the associated MPA.

The MQ-25 Stingray expects to have their pilots on the carrier in OSINT articles.  However, with BLOS, they could be anywhere.


----------



## GR66 (13 Apr 2022)

Something like the MQ-9B SeaGuardian?


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Apr 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Absolutely correct, it is a defined term.
> 
> IOC: The minimum ability to effectively employ a new or improved capability for which adequate infrastructure, training, staffing and support is in place, both for the new capability and the organization that is employing it.  (Project Approval Directive)
> 
> ...


That definition of IOC leaves a lot of room for PMs to maneuver.  It is not something tangible that can be practically applied to every project have have consistent timelines come from it.  How that definition is applied differs from project to project.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Apr 2022)

Particularly in large projects with significant CISOE, IOC can be well into equipment delivery, training development and implementation and other aspects.

So, for example, new aircraft requiring new facilities and changes to airfields may have quite late IOC dates due to time lags in preparing and sequencing construction.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Apr 2022)

dimsum said:


> Depends if you're expecting LOS, BLOS, etc.



A combo?


dimsum said:


> Physical range/combat radius might mean you don't need to deploy from ships - an MQ-9 flew from Grand Forks ND to 78N, circled around a bit, and returned for a 25.5h mission last Sep.  Granted its endurance will be lower with weapons, etc but still probably enough to deploy from the same bases as the associated MPA.
> 
> The MQ-25 Stingray expects to have their pilots on the carrier in OSINT articles.  However, with BLOS, they could be anywhere.



In theory, a RPA could remain ONSTA for 2+ MPA missions.  I suspect the CONOPs would be very similar to an 'overland' sortie.  Launch Recover crew/mission crew that takes control/hands over control at "point X".

The "short deck" idea would extent the MPA and, possibly, allow for them to be used without an MPA.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Apr 2022)

GR66 said:


> Something like the MQ-9B SeaGuardian?



Yes, except that would need to be Canadianized.  Can't just take something that will work/works now and you know..."_use it_".


----------



## Ping Monkey (13 Apr 2022)

GR66 said:


> Something like the MQ-9B SeaGuardian?


Very cool to see this capability quickly maturing. 

Should also be interesting to see it fully integrated into the RIMPAC Task Groups this summer!  😍









						Japan selects MQ-9B SeaGuardian for Coast Guard RPAS project - Naval News
					

General Atomics's MQ-9B SeaGuardian is selected to support the Japan Coast Guard’s (JCG) RPAS (Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems) Project.




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## dimsum (13 Apr 2022)

Ping Monkey said:


> Should be interesting to see it fully integrated into the RIMPAC Task Groups this summer! 😍


Interesting.


----------



## Ping Monkey (13 Apr 2022)

dimsum said:


> Interesting.


Indeed.  

OS news is limited, but I'm inclined to buy myself a ticket to Hawaii this summer to cheer on my GA colleagues.









						SeaGuardian: Cost Effective Surveillance for the Vast Maritime Domain
					

The MQ-9B SeaGuardian has changed the game in maritime domain awareness. It’s the first unmanned aerial system of its kind that can search the ocean surface and the depths in support of naval intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.



					www.ga-asi.com
				





> _RIMPAC 22 will also be the first time a SeaGuardian will be fully integrated with a Fleet Command Center through the secure SIPRNET and Joint Range Extension Protocol (IP based) to pass classified tracks. _


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Apr 2022)

Obviously, I need to get my DLN courses finished up so I can keep up to speed on some of this stuff.  I had no idea it was this far along, and this capable.






						MQ-9B Archives - Naval News
					






					www.navalnews.com
				




There's a decent video piece in the _Day 2 at Sea Air Space_ video.

200nm range, 360 RADAR?  MX-15?   10 A-size/pod.  I wonder what the max # Gs is.m  Anti/de-ice?  Pretty impressive.  This would be an extremely interesting project to be on/Sqn to be on once operational.  

It's great to see this tech maturing.  It's equally sad to know, if the RCAF ever sees kit like this, I'll be squinting at it on a screen from the old folks home.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> That definition of IOC leaves a lot of room for PMs to maneuver.  It is not something tangible that can be practically applied to every project have have consistent timelines come from it.  How that definition is applied differs from project to project.





dapaterson said:


> Particularly in large projects with significant CISOE, IOC can be well into equipment delivery, training development and implementation and other aspects.
> 
> So, for example, new aircraft requiring new facilities and changes to airfields may have quite late IOC dates due to time lags in preparing and sequencing construction.


Be that as it may, the point remains that IOC, per se, is a defined term in DND’s Project Approval Process, and of course each project staff must apply the specifics of their own project to parse
The definition into something that TB (or the MND if appropriate) will accept for PA(Def)/PA(Imp).


----------



## OceanBonfire (1 Jun 2022)

Team Poseidon, consisting of CAE, GE Aviation Canada, IMP Aerospace & Defence, KF Aerospace, Honeywell Aerospace Canada and Raytheon Canada:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1532043438023229443








						Boeing Teams with Canadian Industry to Offer P-8A Poseidon
					

OTTAWA, Ontario, June 1, 2022 – Boeing [NYSE: BA] and several Canadian industry partners announced today their intent to collaborate to provide the capability and sustainability of the proven...




					boeing.mediaroom.com


----------



## suffolkowner (1 Jun 2022)

OceanBonfire said:


> Team Poseidon, consisting of CAE, GE Aviation Canada, IMP Aerospace & Defence, KF Aerospace, Honeywell Aerospace Canada and Raytheon Canada:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1532043438023229443
> ...


Did they leave anyone out to partner up with a mystery competitor?


----------



## dimsum (1 Jun 2022)

OceanBonfire said:


> Team Poseidon, consisting of CAE, GE Aviation Canada, IMP Aerospace & Defence, KF Aerospace, Honeywell Aerospace Canada and Raytheon Canada:


An LRP bidder with IMP as a partner?

Looks like we know what we're getting to replace the Aurora


----------



## dapaterson (1 Jun 2022)

Late and over budget if they're running true to form.


----------



## dimsum (1 Jun 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Late and over budget if they're running true to form.


I didn't want to state the obvious.


----------

