# CMMA - replacing the CP140 Aurora



## Eye In The Sky (5 Jun 2022)

Figure it’s worth starting a separate thread.









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

OTTAWA, Ontario — Boeing and several Canadian industry partners announced June 1 their intent to collaborate to provide the capability and sustainability of the proven P-8A Poseidon for the Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft requirement.  Team Poseidon, consisting of CAE, GE Aviation...




					seapowermagazine.org


----------



## GK .Dundas (5 Jun 2022)

Oh goodie, another thirty year procurement programme for an aircraft that may only have a five to ten year lifespan. Buckle up kids, it's about to get interesting... again.


----------



## dimsum (5 Jun 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> Oh goodie, another thirty year procurement programme for an aircraft that may only have a five to ten year lifespan. Buckle up kids, it's about to get interesting... again.


Or we can go full RAF and get rid of the capability.

Ask them how well that turned out.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> Or we can go full RAF and get rid of the capability.
> 
> Ask them how well that turned out.


So well that they are scrambling to buy P-8s and relearn ASW.

Of course, we would probably just learn to do without…


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Jun 2022)

I think that Uncle Sam’s strong arm (sharp tongue) will result in us joining Team Poseidon like the other four of the FVEYs.


----------



## dimsum (5 Jun 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> I think that Uncle Sam’s strong arm (sharp tongue) will result in us joining Team Poseidon like the other four of the FVEYs.


I think that the fact that there is no other proven flying airframe would push us that way.

Yes, the P-1 exists.  Is Japan allowed to sell it?

Edit:  Proven, flying airframe that meets our range/endurance requirements.  C-295 ASW won't cut it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> I think that the fact that there is no other proven flying airframe would push us that way.
> 
> Yes, the P-1 exists.  Is Japan allowed to sell it?
> 
> Edit:  Proven, flying airframe that meets our range/endurance requirements.  C-295 ASW won't cut it.


Nor will the Q-400…


----------



## dimsum (5 Jun 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Nor will the Q-400…


My first question to DH and Bombardier would be "so, how do you plan on carrying torpedoes?"


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> My first question to DH and Bombardier would be "so, how do you plan on carrying torpedoes?"


Silly rabbit….


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Jun 2022)

That would be another ‘decent’ platform, but hard to argue the “Do what the other four of the FVEYs are doing” logic.


----------



## armrdsoul77 (5 Jun 2022)

Any Nimrods still whole? They'd be dirt cheap...


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Jun 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> I think that Uncle Sam’s strong arm (sharp tongue) will result in us joining Team Poseidon like the other four of the FVEYs.


Plus Norway and Germany and India.


----------



## FJAG (5 Jun 2022)

I'm just an Army guy but with 150 of these already in service, many with our key allies, and on a 737 airframe that bloody WestJet could maintain for us in a pinch - really - what's there to think about?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Jun 2022)

armrdsoul77 said:


> Any Nimrods still whole? They'd be dirt cheap...


just museum examples.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Jun 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> So well that they are scrambling to buy P-8s and relearn ASW.



They’ve got a handful of them and are operational now.

They were smart enough to run the Seedcorn program after the Nimrods were scrapped.  We had more than a few on them on Sqn(s) with the SGOD.



SeaKingTacco said:


> Of course, we would probably just learn to do without…



You never know…


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Jun 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> Oh goodie, another thirty year procurement programme for an aircraft that may only have a five to ten year lifespan. Buckle up kids, it's about to get interesting... again.



 So. The US, Kiwis, Aussies, Brits and Norwegians are all “getting it wrong”?  And India?  Germany? 

Where are you getting 30 year procurement and 5-10 lifespan from?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> Or we can go full RAF and get rid of the capability.
> 
> Ask them how well that turned out.



I seem to remember getting some free trips to Scotland to play in their AO after they let their fleet go…

😃


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> My first question to DH and Bombardier would be "so, how do you plan on carrying torpedoes?"



There was a discussion about that… in the 140
Thread a month or so ago IIRC?

*edit not the 140 thread…









						Boeing to offer P-8 as CP-140 Replacement
					

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...




					army.ca
				




The Q400 might the only runner on the prop side.   As much as I always say we should look at the Sea Herc…


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> I think that Uncle Sam’s strong arm (sharp tongue) will result in us joining Team Poseidon like the other four of the FVEYs.


Agreed! _I suspect_ this meeting was a bit one-sided. It wasn't just the GOB* who was/is frustrated with Canada's constant freeloading and, especially, with Prime Minister Trudeau's hypocrisy.
---
*GOB: Great Orange Buffoon


----------



## dimsum (5 Jun 2022)

FJAG said:


> I'm just an Army guy but with 150 of these already in service, many with our key allies, and on a 737 airframe that bloody WestJet could maintain for us in a pinch - really - what's there to think about?


Political unwillingness to sole-source anything?


----------



## dapaterson (5 Jun 2022)

It's not sole source - it's competitive with only one potential source of supply. 

Sole source would be looking for a car and going straight to Subaru despite there being other options available in the marketplace.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (5 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> Political unwillingness to sole-source anything?


Transparency is a hallmark of this government with defence spending. It's just not a hallmark of the rest of their portfolios. 😉

In all seriousness, I think PSPC would do well to start acting sensibly and using that Operational Necessity clause for a lot of platforms we're short on. Just because Canadian Industry "could" provide a bid, doesn't mean it can provide it in a suitable timeline and without cutting corners.


----------



## GK .Dundas (5 Jun 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> So. The US, Kiwis, Aussies, Brits and Norwegians are all “getting it wrong”?  And India?  Germany?
> 
> Where are you getting 30 year procurement and 5-10 lifespan from?


So how many many more years can we keep the  CP 140 s flying ?


----------



## kev994 (5 Jun 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> So how many many more years can we keep the  CP 140 s flying ?


About a million years if we burn enough cash on it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Jun 2022)

kev994 said:


> About a million years if we burn enough cash on it.


Look at DC-3s. They will essentially fly until there are no more dinosaurs left to burn in their engines. Even then, some bright spark will figure out electric engines…


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Jun 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> So how many many more years can we keep the  CP 140 s flying


Lots, just like we could still be flying upgraded Argus’s.   

But - you didn’t answer my question.  🙂


----------



## kev994 (5 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> Edit:  Proven, flying airframe that meets our range/endurance requirements.  C-295 ASW won't cut it.


Apparently they can just make up range/endurance numbers until it works.


----------



## Weinie (5 Jun 2022)

Didn't the Army try a Multi-Mission Vehicle?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Jun 2022)

This is just renaming what we do in LRP to a more Modern name.   I just hope we don’t call ourselves 4xx MM Sqn.   







Personally I’d love to go back to VP Sqns…


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Jun 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> This is just renaming what we do in LRP to a more Modern name.   I just hope we don’t call ourselves 4xx MM Sqn.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


…and it is HS, not MH, dammitt.

Now, get off my lawn…


----------



## GK .Dundas (5 Jun 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Lots, just like we could still be flying upgraded Argus’s.
> 
> But - you didn’t answer my question.  🙂


Ok my fear is we are going to end up with.another SeaKing replacement programme. Or God help us even longer.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Jun 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> Ok my fear is we are going to end up with.another SeaKing replacement programme. Or God help us even longer



Except the P-8s are rolling out nicely.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (5 Jun 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Except the P-8s are rolling out nicely.


Until we "Canadianize" it, either in specificstion or procurement requirements. 

The Iveco M40 wasa good piece of kit... until we canadianized it.

Same goes for the 2 orphan helicopters out on the coasts.


----------



## suffolkowner (5 Jun 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Except the P-8s are rolling out nicely.


and the Kingfisher is looking more like the Cyclone. I read the comments more along the lines if it takes our usual 30 years to make a decision on a replacement we'll have 10 years running them before everyone else has replaced them


----------



## Spencer100 (5 Jun 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Silly rabbit….


No Bombardier any more with the Q800 or now back to being called the Dash 8.

Maybe a Global with hard points?


----------



## MilEME09 (6 Jun 2022)

Maybe we should talk to the Japanese? Mitsubishi heavy industries did buy the CRJ off Bombardier, and have a large foot print in Ontario.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Until we "Canadianize" it, either in specificstion or procurement requirements.
> 
> The Iveco M40 wasa good piece of kit... until we canadianized it.
> 
> Same goes for the 2 orphan helicopters out on the coasts.



I don’t think every country is using the exact USN version.   

But yes, we could take something that is working and f&&k with it.  😕


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jun 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> Maybe we should talk to the Japanese? Mitsubishi heavy industries did buy the CRJ off Bombardier, and have a large foot print in Ontario.



To turn the CRJ into an MPA?  No thanks.  

Or…for the P-1?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> No Bombardier any more with the Q800 or now back to being called the Dash 8.
> 
> Maybe a Global with hard points?



Nothing with only hard points.  There is a valid requirement for a bombbay.


----------



## MilEME09 (6 Jun 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> To turn the CRJ into an MPA?  No thanks.
> 
> Or…for the P-1?


P-1


----------



## Spencer100 (6 Jun 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> P-1


The P-1  is a Kawasaki product.









						Kawasaki P-1 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




The CRJ program was sold to Mitsubishi to support their now cancelled/put on hold MRJ SpaceJet.









						Mitsubishi SpaceJet - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jun 2022)

Probably be building new hangers anyways so…could build them for either the 1 or the 8.


----------



## Spencer100 (6 Jun 2022)

So if you are a Ottawa type you want a "made in Canada" but with a competitive bid but really the operators just want the Boeing.  Great.  Here are some of your options.

Made in Canada Airframes
Airbus A220
DHC Dash 8
Mitsubishi CRJ
Bombardier Global

Current in service MPAs
Boeing P8
Kawasaki P-1

Others
Saab with a Gulfstream
GD with their Gulfstream
Lockheed with C-130
Airbus A219? Or Other


----------



## dimsum (6 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> So if you are a Ottawa type PSPC and ISED, you want a "made in Canada" but with a competitive bid but really the operators just want the Boeing.


The P-8 is the most mature platform out there. 

The P-1 is used by one country, so the supply chain isn't as robust (e.g. if you need a tire and you're operating a P-8, chances are any major airport that services 737s will have one).  Also, Japan hasn't been able to export military equipment since WWII, so I bet they'll have to get up to speed on international military sales nuances. 

The rest will involve various levels of development, with Canada as a lead customer.  That worked well with the Cyclone   😬


----------



## Spencer100 (6 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> The P-8 is the most mature platform out there.
> 
> The P-1 is used by one country, so the supply chain isn't as robust (e.g. if you need a tire and you're operating a P-8, chances are any major airport that services 737s will have one).  Also, Japan hasn't been able to export military equipment since WWII, so I bet they'll have to get up to speed on international military sales nuances.
> 
> The rest will involve various levels of development, with Canada as a lead customer.  That worked well with the Cyclone   😬



I forgot the leading contender!!!  If you are PSPC....This what you call Success!!! 











						Vietnam set to receive first Twin Otter MPA
					

Vietnam's navy is set to receive its first of six Viking Air DHC-6 Twin Otter Series 400 aircraft in August.  Three examples, designated the Guardian...




					www.flightglobal.com
				




Just one small issue.....Quebec content.....hmmm.....that will take another day.....


----------



## FSTO (6 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> The rest will involve various levels of development, with Canada as a lead customer.  That worked well with the Cyclone   😬


Jesus Dimsum, it was a beautiful morning here on the Prairie and you just ruined it with that line. Because you've just doomed the project to another disaster.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> I forgot the leading contender!!!  If you are PSPC....This what you call Success!!!
> 
> View attachment 71221
> 
> ...


Easy, award L3 MAS in Mirabel the in-service support contract.  Sorry IMP.


----------



## dimsum (6 Jun 2022)

FSTO said:


> Jesus Dimsum, it was a beautiful morning here on the Prairie and you just ruined it with that line. Because you've just doomed the project to another disaster.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> The P-8 is the most mature platform out there.
> 
> The P-1 is used by one country, so the supply chain isn't as robust (e.g. if you need a tire and you're operating a P-8, chances are any major airport that services 737s will have one).  Also, Japan hasn't been able to export military equipment since WWII, so I bet they'll have to get up to speed on international military sales nuances.
> 
> The rest will involve various levels of development, with Canada as a lead customer.  That worked well with the Cyclone   😬


However if we leveraged a combined relationship to get P-1's and be part of the Japanese sub program, the risks may be worth it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jun 2022)

Meanwhile…









						Norwegian Air Force takes delivery of third P-8A Poseidon aircraft
					

The Royal Norwegian Air Force (RNoAF) has taken delivery of the third out of five P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft from the US-based aerospace company Boeing.




					www.airforce-technology.com


----------



## KevinB (6 Jun 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Meanwhile…
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So if Norway needs 5, Canada would need at least 40?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> So if Norway needs 5, Canada would need at least 40?


I like the way you roll…


----------



## KevinB (6 Jun 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> I like the way you roll…


I’m all about go big or go home  

I just looked at the Norwegian AOR and Canada’s, and extrapolated it, plus I assume Canada won’t buy 40, but a significant number under what is proposed, so I figure start with 40 and aim for at least 25


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> I’m all about go big or go home
> 
> I just looked at the Norwegian AOR and Canada’s, and extrapolated it, plus I assume Canada won’t buy 40, but a significant number under what is proposed, so I figure start with 40 and aim for at least 25


I still like how you roll.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Jun 2022)

(Political staffer to PCO brain trust): “Wouldn’t three be enough for Canada?  You know, one for each coast?” (Thinking they’d be scoring brownie points for the Arctic Ocean reference)

(PCO brain trust): “We like the way you think, Xxx Yyyyy!”


----------



## rmc_wannabe (6 Jun 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> (Political staffer to PCO brain trust): “Wouldn’t three be enough for Canada?  You know, one for each coast?” (Thinking they’d be scoring brownie points for the Arctic Ocean reference)
> 
> (PCO brain trust): “We like the way you think, Xxx Yyyyy!”


TBS: "Have you seen the cost of maintaining those 3 planes over 50 years?! No thank you..."


----------



## Spencer100 (6 Jun 2022)

Here is Dash 8 MPA






						News Release | De Havilland
					






					dehavilland.com


----------



## FJAG (6 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Here is Dash 8 MPA
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> ... low-impact on the environment combined with its high productivity and jet-like performance ...



Say no more. We'll take a dozen.


----------



## Spencer100 (6 Jun 2022)

Oh I forgot about a dark horse winner here  Aircraft Photo of M71-01 | Bombardier CL-415MP (CL-215-6B11) | Malaysia - Coast Guard | AirHistory.net #116826

The Canadair Bombardier Viking DeHaviland CL-415, but with new flavours added the CL-515









						De Havilland to develop updated water bomber called DHC-515 Firefighter
					

De Havilland Aircraft of Canada has re-launched development of an updated water bomber based on the stalwart CL-series line of firefighting aircraft.




					www.flightglobal.com


----------



## Spencer100 (6 Jun 2022)

Another option the Sea Hercules! 









						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
				




If that that option is too specialized, we could just roll a palletizing mission kit on-board.









						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
				




And see we can just use the C-130J we already have.  Again Success!  

They would just have to share with the rest of the Forces.  Monday SAR, Tuesday Army moves, Wednesday Navy, Thursday RCAF missions, Friday MPA, weekends repair.


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Jun 2022)

FJAG said:


> ... low-impact on the environment combined with its high productivity and jet-like performance ...


Ah yes. Capped at 25,000 ft and just about 240 KCAS.  Very “jet like.”  If your jet is a Vampire. And even then…


----------



## YZT580 (6 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Another option the Sea Hercules!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pick up the British castoff C130J's and have them converted by Pal.  Win-win with a Canadian company developing it and another excellent British purchase, like the subs


----------



## dimsum (6 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Here is Dash 8 MPA
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, uh, where do the torpedoes go?


----------



## GR66 (6 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> So, uh, where do the torpedoes go?


No torps needed.  We can "convene" with any foreign subs and negotiate their cooperation!


----------



## armrdsoul77 (6 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Another option the Sea Hercules!
> 
> 
> If that that option is too specialized, we could just roll a palletizing mission kit on-board.
> ...


Throw some floats on it for fishing on Sundays.


----------



## Dana381 (6 Jun 2022)

With the budget the CAF is likely to get for it all they will be able to afford is slightly less clapped out P-3's that the U.S. has retired. Then they will spend as much as a P-8 costs to make them into an Aurora


----------



## Spencer100 (6 Jun 2022)

armrdsoul77 said:


> Throw some floats on it for fishing on Sundays.
> View attachment 71235



Don't laugh too hard the Marines are really thinking about doing just that.  









						Amphibious MC-130J Transport Is On Special Operations Command's Wishlist
					

There have been proposals for a waterborne C-130 Hercules in the past, but the U.S. special operations community might just make it a reality.




					www.thedrive.com


----------



## armrdsoul77 (6 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Don't laugh too hard the Marines are really thinking about doing just that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fishing is no laughing matter.


----------



## Spencer100 (6 Jun 2022)

Also 









						Special Ops Want to Turn the C-130 Into a Seaplane — Really
					

The Hercules, one of the most versatile planes in aviation history, isn't finished yet.




					www.popularmechanics.com


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jun 2022)

Dana381 said:


> With the budget the CAF is likely to get for it all they will be able to afford is slightly less clapped out P-3's that the U.S. has retired. Then they will spend as much as a P-8 costs to make them into an Aurora



Currently budgeted for "over $5B" - see Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft - Defence Capabilities Blueprint


----------



## kev994 (7 Jun 2022)

YZT580 said:


> Pick up the British castoff C130J's and have them converted by Pal.  Win-win with a Canadian company developing it and another excellent British purchase, like the subs


They’re block 6 (No ADS-B or RNAV approaches) and would need to be upgraded to block 8 so it’s not as inexpensive as one would think. 
Upon reflection I guess that’s right up our alley.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> I’m all about go big or go home
> 
> I just looked at the Norwegian AOR and Canada’s, and extrapolated it, plus I assume Canada won’t buy 40, but a significant number under what is proposed, so I figure start with 40 and aim for at least 25



Without putting up bar graphs and stuff, I think our minimum needs are 20 to account for maint cycle, 2 operational Sqns (405,407), 1 training Sqn (404) and 1 Force Development Sqn (415).

Each would be assigned a number aircraft. 

 I’ve watched the crapshoot “priority” can create in a small fleet.  I don’t think it works well medium to long term.

If we did get 20, we will need to look hard at technician numbers.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jun 2022)

Dana381 said:


> With the budget the CAF is likely to get for it all they will be able to afford is slightly less clapped out P-3's that the U.S. has retired. Then they will spend as much as a P-8 costs to make them into an Aurora



I’m going to bet against you on this one…


----------



## KevinB (7 Jun 2022)

I believe you where probably told a number close to 24 by us…


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Jun 2022)

kev994 said:


> They’re block 6 (No ADS-B or RNAV approaches) and would need to be upgraded to block 8 so it’s not as inexpensive as one would think.
> Upon reflection I guess that’s right up our alley.


Wow.  Heck, we were pushing Block 8.0/8.1 for ACP-T back in 2014-2015.  Leaving aircraft at 6.0 seems almost willfully negligent.


----------



## dimsum (7 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> I believe you where probably told a number close to 24 by us…


That's more than the number of CP-140s we have now.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> I believe you where probably told a number close to 24 by us…



Well we had 33 Argus’s at one point and they could all do 24+hr flights…

Honestly I just want a plane I don’t have to carry my own piss off of on deployments…

Oh. And get MAD. There’s no reason to not have MAD.


----------



## KevinB (7 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> That's almost double the number of CP-140s we have now.


Which was woefully inadequate and contributed to the issues you face now.    Canada has constantly replaced AirFrames since the 50’s at a less than 1:1 rate, and if allowed to continue the entire RCAF will be sitting at a desk reminiscing about what it was like when their grandparents flew… 

Frankly if I was king, I’d toss on some E-8’s to the P-8 order, as that fits the bill for a bunch of other missing CAF NORAD requirements too.


----------



## dimsum (7 Jun 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Honestly I just want a plane I don’t have to carry my own piss off of on deployments…


Hey, and poop too!


----------



## KevinB (7 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> Hey, and poop too!


He likes to carry that bag apparently.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> Hey, and poop too!



I was trying to NOT remember that…


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> He likes to carry that bag apparently.


 No one likes the shit disk!


----------



## KevinB (7 Jun 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> No one likes the shit disk!


Just need to freeze it.  Then you can hide it in a buddies kit bag . They won’t know till later 👹


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> Which was woefully inadequate and contributed to the issues you face now.    Canada has constantly replaced AirFrames since the 50’s at a less than 1:1 rate, and if allowed to continue the entire RCAF will be sitting at a desk reminiscing about what it was like when their grandparents flew…
> 
> Frankly if I was king, I’d toss on some E-8’s to the P-8 order, as that fits the bill for a bunch of other missing CAF NORAD requirements too.



We replaced 31 Argus (33 were build, 2 were lost in crashes) with 18 Auroras.  The idea being they were “more modern/capable”.  My dad can tell stories of being able to do hot handovers with the Argus for days on end on the East Coast without calling West coast planes or crews in to support.  This was with an aircraft that could take off out of the east coast of Canada, fly to off the coast of Ireland, patrol 8 hours and then RTB.

The Aurora was faster so the thought was…it could get ONSTA quicker etc. 

Of the 18 Aurora, 10 were initially planned for ASLEP and AIMP.  That was later changed to 14 that would eventually end up as Block 4 aircraft. It’s 2022 and the fleet isn’t there yet…but the aircraft are 40+years old. 

My take on the current situation is “more demand than there is supply”.  We need more crews at the line sqns, more instructors at 404 and more people doing testing and development.

The sub threat from current adversaries is not going away, getting smaller or assessed as less capable.  We need to decide if we care about that or are happy to let our Allies do the heavy lifting…but I wouldn’t be surprised if our NORAD partner reminds us that maritime approaches are part of our NORAD mission…

Our MPAs are used in many domestic and international ops, and does support to other Depts in the govt.


----------



## Spencer100 (7 Jun 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> We replaced 31 Argus (33 were build, 2 were lost in crashes) with 18 Auroras.  The idea being they were “more modern/capable”.  My dad can tell stories of being able to do hot handovers with the Argus for days on end on the East Coast without calling West coast planes or crews in to support.  This was with an aircraft that could take off out of the east coast of Canada, fly to off the coast of Ireland, patrol 8 hours and then RTB.
> 
> The Aurora was faster so the thought was…it could get ONSTA quicker etc.
> 
> ...


So you are saying the Twin Otter Patrol idea is just ticket then?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> So you are saying the Twin Otter Patrol idea is just ticket then?



If anyone if Govt sees that post it might be what we end up with…


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jun 2022)

Germany purchases seven additional Boeing P-8A Poseidon and buries MAWS project
					

As part of a massive rearmament program announced by the German government, sources confirmed that the German Navy will add 7 additional Boeing P-8A Poseidon to




					www.aviacionline.com


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Jun 2022)

2 Reserve VP Sqns with P-8s and 300+ personnel/Sqn?  Wonder if we can get them tasked to support the LRP fleet…









						Navy Air Reserve Begins Transition to P-8A Poseidon Aircraft  - Seapower
					

ARLINGTON, Va. — The Navy Air Reserve has begun to retire its P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft and upgrade to the P-8A Poseidon MPA.  Current and former members of Patrol Squadron 62 (VP-62), based at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida,...




					seapowermagazine.org


----------



## dimsum (9 Jun 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> 2 Reserve VP Sqns with P-8s and 300+ personnel/Sqn?  Wonder if we can get them tasked to support the LRP fleet…
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, but how many of them fly for Delta/United/AA as their "day job"?  

Although the idea of a Class A TACCO seems pretty nice right now...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Jun 2022)

Gaining/maintaining quals aside, I was more trying to point out they are equipping their 2 reserve Sqns with new planes.  

And our 2 op sqns aren’t flush with BIV yet…


----------



## CBH99 (9 Jun 2022)

kev994 said:


> They’re block 6 (No ADS-B or RNAV approaches) and would need to be upgraded to block 8 so it’s not as inexpensive as one would think.
> Upon reflection I guess that’s right up our alley.


Why would they need to be upgraded to Block 8?


Eye In The Sky said:


> Gaining/maintaining quals aside, I was more trying to point out they are equipping their 2 reserve Sqns with new planes.
> 
> And our 2 op sqns aren’t flush with BIV yet…


BIV??


----------



## dimsum (9 Jun 2022)

CBH99 said:


> BIV??


Aurora Block 4


----------



## kev994 (9 Jun 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Why would they need to be upgraded to Block 8?
> 
> BIV??


In the very near future aircraft will not be able to leave the country unless they’re equipped with ADS-B, and the number of instrument approaches that are not RNAV is quickly dwindling, 6.1 can’t do either.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Jun 2022)

kev994 said:


> In the very near future aircraft will not be able to leave the country unless they’re equipped with ADS-B, and the number of instrument approaches that are not RNAV is quickly dwindling, 6.1 can’t do either.


Rapidly achieving Buffalo Air levels of technology?


----------



## FSTO (9 Jun 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Rapidly achieving Buffalo Air levels of technology?


That’s the way we roll.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> Aurora Block 4



Yes, sorry.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Jun 2022)

RAF looking for 3 more P-8s.









						RAF Calls for More Sub-Hunter Aircraft as Russia Increases Presence: Report
					

Royal Air Force commanders are asking for additional P-8 Aircraft as Russia ramps up submarine patrols near the country's maritime borders.




					www.thedefensepost.com


----------



## YZT580 (23 Jun 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> RAF looking for 3 more P-8s.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"If you do defense on the cheap, you do not have that credible response "  That line should be etched over the door


----------



## FSTO (22 Jul 2022)

Aotearoa New Zealand's P-8A Poseidon rolls out of the paint factory
					






					www.facebook.com
				




Canada will soon be entering negotiations to overpay New Zealand for their P3’s


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jul 2022)

FSTO said:


> Aotearoa New Zealand's P-8A Poseidon rolls out of the paint factory
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don’t they have used subs and fighters? Maybe a package deal??


----------



## dapaterson (22 Jul 2022)

New Zealand abolished their fighter force a number of years ago.  AFAIK they have not rebuilt it.


----------



## YZT580 (22 Jul 2022)

dapaterson said:


> New Zealand abolished their fighter force a number of years ago.  AFAIK they have not rebuilt it.


sorta makes sense.  They are far enough from any potential airborne threat that any attack would come from carrier based forces and a ground based artillery network would easily negate that threat.  They aren't likely to initiate any offensive actions on their own but would work in concert with others so transport and sub hunters, convoy protection etc. should be the strengths that they bring to any coalition.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Jul 2022)

YZT580 said:


> sorta makes sense.  They are far enough from any potential airborne threat that any attack would come from carrier based forces and a ground based artillery network would easily negate that threat.  They aren't likely to initiate any offensive actions on their own but would work in concert with others so transport and sub hunters, convoy protection etc. should be the strengths that they bring to any coalition.


NZ got rid of their fighter force after they figured out they were spending all of their time in Australia, effectively being the RAAF aggressor sqn. The A4s were getting tired and they did not want to spend the money to buy F16s.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Jul 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> NZ got rid of their fighter force after they figured out they were spending all of their time in Australia, effectively being the RAAF aggressor sqn. The A4s were getting tired and they did not want to spend the money to buy F16s.


Yeah, the A4 ‘Scooter’ was only marginally more modern than the P-80/T-33…


----------



## MTShaw (23 Jul 2022)

It strikes me that in someways that the P8 would be a side grade. Also, the P8 might have upgrade problems. It is so full of  electronics that the thing doesn’t have doors for the landing gear. Would be nice for our current plane to carry some anti-shipping missiles though.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Jul 2022)

MTShaw said:


> It strikes me that in someways that the P8 would be a side grade. Also, the P8 might have upgrade problems. It is so full of  electronics that the thing doesn’t have doors for the landing gear. Would be nice for our current plane to carry some anti-shipping missiles though.


Side grade to a P-3 variant? 🤔 

What system(s) would pose the issue for upgrade?  Upgrade how much?  You know there are doors for the landing gear, right?  The gear isn’t just the wheels. The wheels have been uncovered on 737s for 55+ years…worked so far and haven’t restricted onboard systems.

Definitely agree with you that we shouldn’t have gone to such lengths to decommission the hard points on the CP-140 that would have otherwise supported Harpoon (or eqvt) employment.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Jul 2022)

I’m curious what upgrade problems are expected.  Generally speaking, things that go in avionics racks are getting smaller not bigger.

The fleet still has the wing pylons and they’ve been put on since ASLEP but they aren’t fitted and working.  The “Canadian” way; I wouldn’t be surprised if we paid companies to remove the spare tire from COTS fleets.

Just to note, VX-1 and 20 were launching Harpoons off of P-8 long before we had a working Block 4…2013 for 20.  We weren’t even Block 3 back then.



			https://www.navair.navy.mil/node/20271


----------



## MTShaw (24 Jul 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Side grade to a P-3 variant? 🤔
> 
> What system(s) would pose the issue for upgrade?  Upgrade how much?  You know there are doors for the landing gear, right?  The gear isn’t just the wheels. The wheels have been uncovered on 737s for 55+ years…worked so far and haven’t restricted onboard systems.
> 
> Definitely agree with you that we shouldn’t have gone to such lengths to decommission the hard points on the CP-140 that would have otherwise supported Harpoon (or eqvt) employment.


737 has no doors For the landing gear? Boeing engineering. Fluid dynamics at its finest.


----------



## MTShaw (24 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I’m curious what upgrade problems are expected.  Generally speaking, things that go in avionics racks are getting smaller not bigger.
> 
> The fleet still has the wing pylons and they’ve been put on since ASLEP but they aren’t fitted and working.  The “Canadian” way; I wouldn’t be surprised if we paid companies to remove the spare tire from COTS fleets.
> 
> ...


In the navy, we have to make allowance not only for new weapons, but for computers. Realstic you can’t have enough computer power. And to have computer power you need power and both need cooling.

Computing gets smaller but also gets more dense and hotter. And because there is more room in the rack. They load it up with more computing…


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Jul 2022)

MTShaw said:


> 737 has no doors For the landing gear? Boeing engineering. Fluid dynamics at its finest.


I am not really sure what your point is. The 737 family has never had landing gear doors. What has that got to do, specifically, with the operational effectiveness of the P8?


----------



## MTShaw (24 Jul 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> I am not really sure what your point is. The 737 family has never had landing gear doors. What has that got to do, specifically, with the operational effectiveness of the P8?


I am poking fun at Boeing for an obvious aerodynamic loss not rectified over 55 years. 

Rule for me is if i don’t make sense it’s because I’m attempting to be funny or because i have aphasia due to stroke.


----------



## SupersonicMax (24 Jul 2022)

MTShaw said:


> I am poking fun at Boeing for an obvious aerodynamic loss not rectified over 55 years.
> 
> Rule for me is if i don’t make sense it’s because I’m attempting to be funny or because i have aphasia due to stroke.


The 737 is far from the only plane with no main wheels doors.  The 737 main wheels wells are fitted with a seal and the wheel with a hub to reduce parasite drag.  The saving in weight (and thus the reduced induced drag) makes up for it. 

The 737 sits too low to fit it with main wheel doors.  That was a deliberate design choice from Boeing and operators see no operational benefit from having the main wheel doors hence they were never designed and installed.


----------



## Spencer100 (24 Jul 2022)

MTShaw said:


> It strikes me that in someways that the P8 would be a side grade. Also, the P8 might have upgrade problems. It is so full of  electronics that the thing doesn’t have doors for the landing gear. Would be nice for our current plane to carry some anti-shipping missiles though.


No 737 has landing gear doors


----------



## dapaterson (24 Jul 2022)

So you're saying an AERE officer deep in the bowels of DAR can get "Leading Change" points for adding them to the specification, and a second AERE officer deep in the bowels of ADM Mat can get "Leading Change" points for removing them from the in-service fleet a few years later?

#Canadianization


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Jul 2022)

dapaterson said:


> So you're saying an AERE officer deep in the bowels of DAR can get "Leading Change" points for adding them to the specification, and a second AERE officer deep in the bowels of ADM Mat can get "Leading Change" points for removing them from the in-service fleet a few years later?
> 
> #Canadianization


Sadly, you probably are not far from the truth…


----------



## GK .Dundas (24 Jul 2022)

dapaterson said:


> So you're saying an AERE officer deep in the bowels of DAR can get "Leading Change" points for adding them to the specification, and a second AERE officer deep in the bowels of ADM Mat can get "Leading Change" points for removing them from the in-service fleet a few years later?
> 
> #Canadianization


And I suspect that somewhere someone is planning to reinstall them to get his or hers points...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> The 737 is far from the only plane with no main wheels doors.  The 737 main wheels wells are fitted with a seal and the wheel with a hub to reduce parasite drag.  The saving in weight (and thus the reduced induced drag) makes up for it.
> 
> The 737 sits too low to fit it with main wheel doors.  That was a deliberate design choice from Boeing and operators see no operational benefit from having the main wheel doors hence they were never designed and installed.


As Max mentions


----------



## dimsum (24 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> The 737 is far from the only plane with no main wheels doors.  The 737 main wheels wells are fitted with a seal and the wheel with a hub to reduce parasite drag.  The saving in weight (and thus the reduced induced drag) makes up for it.
> 
> The 737 sits too low to fit it with main wheel doors.  That was a deliberate design choice from Boeing and operators see no operational benefit from having the main wheel doors hence they were never designed and installed.


Oh look at you with “facts” and “expertise”. 😏


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Jul 2022)

Well, in fairness, the facts have been around for more than half a century.  😉


----------



## KevinB (25 Jul 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Well, in fairness, the facts have been around for more than half a century.  😉


So why is it an issue now? 

Or does the CAF really want P-3’s from the Boneyard?


----------



## FSTO (25 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> So why is it an issue now?
> 
> Or does the CAF really want P-3’s from the Boneyard?


What the CAF wants and what it’ll get are two wildly different items.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> So why is it an issue now?
> 
> Or does the CAF really want P-3’s from the Boneyard?


I don’t think it’s (exposed wheels) is really an issue for the P-8.  The linkage to electronics payload limitations due to limited space related to gear was mentioned, but I don’t see it as any kind of a substantive issue.


----------



## CBH99 (25 Jul 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Well, in fairness, the facts have been around for more than half a century.  😉


I can’t say I noticed the wheels not having coverings since I read this thread.  I must’ve seen 737s in flight dozens of times… I never once noticed or asked myself about it.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jul 2022)

CBH99 said:


> I can’t say I noticed the wheels not having coverings since I read this thread.  I must’ve seen 737s in flight dozens of times… I never once noticed or asked myself about it.




😆


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Jul 2022)

CBH99 said:


> I can’t say I noticed the wheels not having coverings since I read this thread.  I must’ve seen 737s in flight dozens of times… I never once noticed or asked myself about it.


Well if your flying in one and you notice, then something has gone terribly wrong.


----------



## MTShaw (25 Jul 2022)

As


Colin Parkinson said:


> As Max mentions


Were gee


SupersonicMax said:


> The 737 is far from the only plane with no main wheels doors.  The 737 main wheels wells are fitted with a seal and the wheel with a hub to reduce parasite drag.  The saving in weight (and thus the reduced induced drag) makes up for it.
> 
> The 737 sits too low to fit it with main wheel doors.  That was a deliberate design choice from Boeing and operators see no operational benefit from having the main wheel doors hence they were never designed and installed.


I’m replying to many of you at once. Had Boeing gotten of their butts and made a 797 to replace the 737 doors would have been covering the wheels, and doors for landing hear would be much lighter. Landing gear would likely been lighter. Boeing likely to lose the short haul because they kept kicking the can down the road.  But American companies and government will keep it flying. 

This is the mother of all tangents.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2022)




----------



## Spencer100 (25 Jul 2022)

MTShaw said:


> As
> 
> Were gee
> 
> ...


Not all Boeing fault.  The airlines loved the 737.  They like not having to re-cert the pilots for a different type rating. Etc etc.  So you know they went back and forth with it. Cost, customers etc.   They have taken the 737 out probably as far as it could go.   The 737 why great for the flying public it basically opened the skies to everyone at an affordable price.  

I think they are now working the replacement.  Its going to be a tough call.









						What Happened To The Boeing 797?
					






					simpleflying.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Jul 2022)

As part of their testing for the first 737, they landed it on the grass field at Hope BC, a picture of it on the field is in the VSA clubhouse.


----------



## YZT580 (25 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> As part of their testing for the first 737, they landed it on the grass field at Hope BC, a picture of it on the field is in the VSA clubhouse.


Don't forget Nordair operated them from graveled runways through the addition of a deflectors on the nose gear.  They were a little noisy though when the odd stone would ping off the lower fuselage


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Jul 2022)

YZT580 said:


> Don't forget Nordair operated them from graveled runways through the addition of a deflectors on the nose gear.  They were a little noisy though when the odd stone would ping off the lower fuselage


I flew in on one for crew change in the Arctic


----------



## Quirky (25 Jul 2022)

MTShaw said:


> I’m replying to many of you at once. Had Boeing gotten of their butts and made a 797 to replace the 737 doors would have been covering the wheels, and doors for landing hear would be much lighter. Landing gear would likely been lighter. Boeing likely to lose the short haul because they kept kicking the can down the road. But American companies and government will keep it flying.



Sounds like you are advocating for a 737 lift kit to accommodate the main gear doors.


----------



## MTShaw (25 Jul 2022)

Quirky said:


> Sounds like you are advocating for a 737 lift kit to accommodate the main gear doors.


I wouldn’t. I found the article above informative. Lots of  options to get a single aisle up in the air more quickly. Boeing is a few steps behind and did it to themselves. 

Also,  i don’t think the current government is looking for More than mpa. Beyond  what that means it don’t know. But it probably has Airbus in it.

One thing that I believe that we should buy pre-selected weapons of our allies. MQ-9B, CF-355, Type 26. So, P8. Even if we have Even if Boeing never covers the landing gear. I think Boeing could have done better than it did for the electronics,


----------



## CBH99 (26 Jul 2022)

MTShaw said:


> As
> 
> Were gee
> 
> ...


I agree with you that Boeing, for a few years there, should have got off their butts. 

Their priorities were profit, and continually less government oversight. And it caught up with them in some big, big ways.  Not to mention how much of a mess some of the military projects ended up being.  


But I’m not sure the uncovered landing gear on the 737 is the real ‘smoking gun of laziness’ you’re making it out to be?  It works, and has for a while 🤷🏼‍♂️

(The two crash sites on the other hand…)


----------



## MTShaw (26 Jul 2022)

CBH99 said:


> I agree with you that Boeing, for a few years there, should have got off their butts.
> 
> Their priorities were profit, and continually less government oversight. And it caught up with them in some big, big ways.  Not to mention how much of a mess some of the military projects ended up being.
> 
> ...


At this point  in what I’ve learned, i wouldn't say that the landing gear is the problem. It is anachronistic and a symptom of a bigger problem in Boeing, as you said.

From what I can tell, the A321xlr crossed the Atlantic before Boeing’s design cross a computer screen.

Anyway, so we kind of agree.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Jul 2022)

MTShaw said:


> At this point  in what I’ve learned, i wouldn't say that the landing gear is the problem. It is anachronistic and a symptom of a bigger problem in Boeing, as you said.
> 
> From what I can tell, the A321xlr crossed the Atlantic before Boeing’s design cross a computer screen.
> 
> Anyway, so we kind of agree.


Air Canada seems to like those with orders for 6 and plans for another 20.


----------



## Spencer100 (26 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Air Canada seems to like those with orders for 6 and plans for another 20.


Boeing 

"As of June 2022,* 15,167* Boeing 737s have been ordered and 11,066 delivered."  So more than 4000 more on order to build.  They are going to be around for a long time.

Also with the P-8 being picked by more countries and the E-7 entering service with the US.  This platform will be around to the end of time.  

P-8 Used by RAAF, RAF, RNZAF, Germany on order, USN, South Korea, RNAF, India (and they have a MAD unit on it) 

E-7 Used by RAAF, RAF, South Korea, Turkey plus ordered by the USAF.  Many other are looking.


----------



## CBH99 (26 Jul 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Boeing
> 
> "As of June 2022,* 15,167* Boeing 737s have been ordered and 11,066 delivered."  So more than 4000 more on order to build.  They are going to be around for a long time.
> 
> ...


It’s good to see commonality in the airframe used not just by the USAF in different roles, but allied countries as well.  

Makes planning and logistics a lot easier when everybody is showing up with the same airframe for certain tasks, i.e. P8

For the love of ***, I hope Canada just signs on to the P8 program as a customer.  We can’t keep the P3 fleet flying forever, and it makes no sense to stuff Block 4 P3 aircraft full of expensive & capable gear if the airframe itself will be retired sooner vs later. 

For the same benefits as it would benefit anybody else - common airframe & and solid interoperability.  Not to mention the abundance of spare parts & qualified mechanics/techs.  

(If we can get a similar capability out of a smaller aircraft produced by Bombardier, that’s another conversation entirely.  But SAAB pull the plug on that recently, so I’m not looking at that as a reliable option.)  



The Airbus MRTT is also a solid aircraft, and will be used by both us & some European allies in the tanker role.  

Airbus earned that business the honest way, by having a solid product to offer to its customers that worked as advertised. 

I believe they even reached a milestone & performed some A/A refuels autonomously, something the KC-46 isn’t even close to being able to attempt.   









						Tanking goes automatic
					

In-flight refuelling operations are among the most demanding missions. Both the tanker and receiver pilots need to operate in close formation, flying aircraft with different flight envelopes and ranging speeds, in day-and-night and all weather conditions, and above the battlefield…. There are...




					www.airbus.com
				





They also won the USAF competition to refresh their tanker fleet, which would have added hundreds of aircraft on order.  

If it wasn’t for Boeing intensely lobbying Congress (aka bribing various congressmen with cash payments & the threat of jobs leaving their districts) I imagine the USAF would be flying license-built MRTT’s now without all the headaches the KC-46 has/is giving them.


----------



## Spencer100 (26 Jul 2022)

CBH99 said:


> It’s good to see commonality in the airframe used not just by the USAF in different roles, but allied countries as well.
> 
> Makes planning and logistics a lot easier when everybody is showing up with the same airframe for certain tasks, i.e. P8
> 
> ...


Boeing in hindsight wished Airbus had won the contract too.   It was a fixed priced contract they low balled to get. They have lost billions on it.  That and Force One that Trump made them low ball too.  The Boeing CEO has said as much. 

Boeing's CEO Says It Shouldn't Have Signed Air Force One Deal.






						Boeing Defense CEO: Lessons Learned From Contract Struggles | Aviation Week Network
					

Boeing’s model of bidding low and taking on fixed-price contracts has meant cost overruns and schedule delays.




					aviationweek.com
				




The next program from Boeing to watch is the T-7 Redhawk.  They went low on that one too.  But have SAAB onboard to control cost.  And the real hope on that is the International orders.  RACF is high on the list on that one.

Then again Airbus is not much better......FWSAR....cough cough.


----------



## MTShaw (26 Jul 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Boeing
> 
> "As of June 2022,* 15,167* Boeing 737s have been ordered and 11,066 delivered."  So more than 4000 more on order to build.  They are going to be around for a long time.
> 
> ...


They’re the most used because it is was the only one. They are used in America by Americans because ‘Merica 

I agree with the statement 737 opened the skies for manny people. And they did that without covering their landing gear. 😀

My point is that Airbus is winning the single aisles and the single-aisle is where the action is for now. The 777 on the other hand is an amazing piece of engineering.

Quite the rabbit hole.


----------



## MTShaw (26 Jul 2022)

FSWAR: instead of buying the right one first, let’s building our own.

MRTT news:








						Airbus A330 MRTT Certificated for Automatic Aerial Refueling - FLYING Magazine
					

Airbus' A330 MRTT is the first tanker in the world to be certificated for automatic air-to-air refueling boom operations during daylight, according to the aircraft manufacturer.




					www.flyingmag.com
				




It is a plane that work.

KC-X Instead buying one that work, let’s build our own plane…so we can keep a 767 line open.

I’m actually stunned that the KC-46 has been this bad.


----------



## Spencer100 (26 Jul 2022)

MTShaw said:


> They’re the most used because it is was the only one. They are used in America by Americans because ‘Merica
> 
> I agree with the statement 737 opened the skies for manny people. And they did that without covering their landing gear. 😀
> 
> My point is that Airbus is winning the single aisles and the single-aisle is where the action is for now. The 777 on the other hand is an amazing piece of engineering.


here is great video on the landing gear.  It explains the engineering and reasons.


----------



## MTShaw (26 Jul 2022)

Thanks you for the video. My post stroke communication levels are full. Talk to you tomorrow.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Jul 2022)

CBH99 said:


> It’s good to see commonality in the airframe used not just by the USAF in different roles, but allied countries as well.
> 
> Makes planning and logistics a lot easier when everybody is showing up with the same airframe for certain tasks, i.e. P8



Used to be the case for us with P-3, and I’ve been on deployments the other countries kept us flying in a pinch.  We will not have that option soon. 



CBH99 said:


> For the love of ***, I hope Canada just signs on to the P8 program as a customer.  We can’t keep the P3 fleet flying forever, and it makes no sense to stuff Block 4 P3 aircraft full of expensive & capable gear if the airframe itself will be retired sooner vs later.



That is exactly what we’ve done.  If what I’ve heard recently is accurate…well I am expecting I’ll retire in 8 years with 140s still part of the RCAF.   We won’t be a credible ASW or MM platform; too few, too old…to unreliable.

I’ve flown Blocks 2, 3 and 4 and I honestly still love flying on her but…it’s retirement time.  She’s done her part…


----------



## FSTO (27 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> That is exactly what we’ve done.


Who besides us are still flying the P3's?

We are fubard once again.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Jul 2022)

FSTO said:


> Who besides us are still flying the P3's?
> 
> We are fubard once again.



Brazil…Germany for a bit longer…


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Brazil…Germany for a bit longer…


Japan has a bunch…actually, I was surprised how many operators of the P3 that there still are.


----------



## MTShaw (27 Jul 2022)

MTShaw said:


> Thanks you for the video. My post stroke communication levels are full. Talk to you tomorrow.


My impression of that video, beyond the specific engineering and some imaginative solutions, is that Boeing is a victim of its history lie all of us. And the post MD merger.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Jul 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Japan has a bunch…actually, I was surprised how many operators of the P3 that there still are.



Ya, there’s more than the 2 I listed.  But still, ours should be moving into that in-law suite and enjoying sunrise / sunsets between Bingo games soon.


----------



## GR66 (28 Jul 2022)

Silly question.  Is the retirement of the CP-140 strictly an airframe issue or are the mission systems (even with the Block IV upgrades) no longer meeting our requirements?

I know I'm going to regret even suggesting the idea of another Canadian "unicorn" design, but assuming it's not a systems issue could you install the Aurora systems in an Airbus A330?  With us already getting the A330-MRTT you'd have the advantage of a common airframe.  

The MRTT already has wings strengthened for their refueling pylons so I'm making the (totally uneducated) guess that the airworthiness testing requirements would be more about the fuselage changes than load issues.  Airbus has presumably already done some work on designing some of the more mechanical systems (like a weapons bay and sonobuoy dispenser) in their proposed A319 MPA design.

Obviously a much larger airframe than the P-8 but also much greater range and presumably capability to carry more weapons and sonobuoys.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Jul 2022)

No.  Do not build bespoke fleets.  Your non recurring engineering costs are huge.  And every time you have to swap out a system for a new, upgraded one, you incur those costs.  Plus regression tests and flight tests and...

Buying an in service proven platform lets you leverage investments made by other partners, and gives a larger user demand, meaning supply chain issues will be reduced.

The virtual fleet model of the C-17 works.  Canadianized unique fleets like the Cyclone and Aurora are expensive and create long term sustainability risk.  Good for firms like Sikorsky and IMP, bad for taxpayers and the CAF.


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 Jul 2022)

dapaterson said:


> The virtual fleet model of the C-17 works.  Canadianized unique fleets like the Cyclone and Aurora are expensive and create long term sustainability risk.  Good for firms like Sikorsky and IMP, bad for taxpayers and the CAF.


Our procurement model favours the canadianization as we define requirements and then companies offer solutions.  When there is no off the shelf solutions to all our mandatory requirements (almost every single time), canadianization occurs where company offer modified versions of their already existing designs for a fringe customers.  Looks great on paper but typically, given the complexity with those projects, it ends up being compromise after compromise.  In the end, the aircraft is more expensive than off the shelf competitors and can typically do less.

That model is great to favour innovation for smaller projects but yields disasters for larger procurement projects…. As evidenced by the Cyclone and CC295…


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Jul 2022)

GR66 said:


> Silly question.  Is the retirement of the CP-140 strictly an airframe issue or are the mission systems (even with the Block IV upgrades) no longer meeting our requirements?



The Mission systems are ok.  I say ok because Block 3 had some issues and those weren’t fixed with Block 4 (different upgrades).  We don’t have enough spares. The airframe is getting old.  Replacing wings and empennage doesn’t solve all the “old plane” issues.  They’re 40 years old, the spent a lot of time down low bouncing around etc.



GR66 said:


> I know I'm going to regret even suggesting the idea of another Canadian "unicorn" design, but assuming it's not a systems issue could you install the Aurora systems in an Airbus A330?  With us already getting the A330-MRTT you'd have the advantage of a common airframe.
> 
> The MRTT already has wings strengthened for their refueling pylons so I'm making the (totally uneducated) guess that the airworthiness testing requirements would be more about the fuselage changes than load issues.  Airbus has presumably already done some work on designing some of the more mechanical systems (like a weapons bay and sonobuoy dispenser) in their proposed A319 MPA design.
> 
> Obviously a much larger airframe than the P-8 but also much greater range and presumably capability to carry more weapons and sonobuoys.



Does it have a bombbay?  

Putting mission systems in is a long and costly process.  I’d avoid anything no designed for that configuration if it was me.


----------



## CBH99 (28 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Used to be the case for us with P-3, and I’ve been on deployments the other countries kept us flying in a pinch.  We will not have that option soon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good


GR66 said:


> Silly question.  Is the retirement of the CP-140 strictly an airframe issue or are the mission systems (even with the Block IV upgrades) no longer meeting our requirements?
> 
> I know I'm going to regret even suggesting the idea of another Canadian "unicorn" design, but assuming it's not a systems issue could you install the Aurora systems in an Airbus A330?  With us already getting the A330-MRTT you'd have the advantage of a common airframe.
> 
> ...


It’s not a silly question at all.  I’d reckon it’s actually a good question.  Having a common airframe between the MRTT & MPA fleets would - in theory - have quite a few advantages.  

It eliminates an entire training pipeline for pilots, mechanics & techs.  It eliminates an entire supply line.  And - in theory - it increases efficiency across the board.  


But, like stated above by others with far more knowledge than I - in theory, and in practice, don’t always line up.  I’ve learned over the years that technical details are usually far more complicated than one initially thinks.  

Not a silly question/suggestion tho.


----------



## CBH99 (28 Jul 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Japan has a bunch…actually, I was surprised how many operators of the P3 that there still are.


Has the USN completely converted to the P8 now, or are there still a few P3’s waiting to be swapped out soon?  

(I think there are still a few P3’s in use, although they may be used primarily for training now.)


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Jul 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Japan has a bunch…actually, I was surprised how many operators of the P3 that there still are.


Are they selling any?


----------



## Spencer100 (29 Jul 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Good
> 
> It’s not a silly question at all.  I’d reckon it’s actually a good question.  Having a common airframe between the MRTT & MPA fleets would - in theory - have quite a few advantages.
> 
> ...


737 is too small for the VVIP fleet and the MRTT role. Plus you need to pay for all the engineering for tanking.  Not cheap.  And for less capability. 

Since both MRTT and the P-8 are based on airliners. The whole system of training, repair MRO is very different than say a fighter or even a C-17.  

There will hundreds of P-8 and thousands of 737.

There are hundreds of A330. 

So those fleets would fine.

Also I don't think you will have a shortage of pilots wanting to fly those types.  Highly sought after when they leave the service.


----------



## CBH99 (29 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Are they selling any?


We all know the odd flag officer peeks in on these discussions from time to time…

So you shush that mouth of yours there sir…


----------



## dimsum (29 Jul 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Has the USN completely converted to the P8 now, or are there still a few P3’s waiting to be swapped out soon?
> 
> (I think there are still a few P3’s in use, although they may be used primarily for training now.)


A couple of reserve squadrons still use the P-3C. 

There would still need to be some massive design changes (like gutting the inside of a kitchen reno) since the CP-140 seating arrangements and systems locations are different than the regular P-3.


----------



## FSTO (29 Jul 2022)

dimsum said:


> A couple of reserve squadrons still use the P-3C.
> 
> There would still need to be some massive design changes (like gutting the inside of a kitchen reno) since the CP-140 seating arrangements and systems locations are different than the regular P-3.


More work for IMP Halifax! (Not sure of the name nor the location of where the upgrades are being done)


----------



## DBNSG (29 Jul 2022)

FSTO said:


> More work for IMP Halifax! (Not sure of the name nor the location of where the upgrades are being done)


Halifax International Airport


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Jul 2022)

DBNSG said:


> Halifax International Airport


I thought he meant the HPMC* 🤷🏻‍♂️ 


* High Profit Margin Centre


----------



## DBNSG (29 Jul 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> I thought he meant the HPMC* 🤷🏻‍♂️
> 
> 
> * High Profit Margin Centre


Well the owner of IMP is still the largest single shareholder of RBC


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Jul 2022)

And his ex-Son-in-Law is a close runner up, I believe.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Jul 2022)

There’s a few hangers at YHZ where Auroras get worked on…it’s quite interesting to see it all happening.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> There’s a few hangers at Stansfield where Auroras get worked on…it’s quite interesting to see it all happening.


I was in there reasonably frequently when IMP was doing periodic inspections on Sea Kings.


----------



## Dana381 (8 Aug 2022)

Like I said before, the British have the best names for military hardware


----------



## Spencer100 (9 Aug 2022)

Get the IBTWL-GASM in the air!  

or

The I bite Willy Gazem


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Sep 2022)

CDR article on the CMMA and the P8








						Vol 28-Iss 4
					

Vol 28-Iss 4




					viewer.zmags.com


----------



## FSTO (15 Sep 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> CDR article on the CMMA and the P8
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Since everyone else is using it, Canada will insist on a bespoke and useless alternative.


----------



## dimsum (15 Sep 2022)

FSTO said:


> Since everyone else is using it, Canada will insist on a bespoke and useless alternative.


“Canada” as in RCAF, or “Canada” as in DND writ large, or “Canada” as in GoC?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Sep 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> CDR article on the CMMA and the P8
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## FSTO (16 Sep 2022)

dimsum said:


> “Canada” as in RCAF, or “Canada” as in DND writ large, or “Canada” as in GoC?


All of them? But each will chose a different type of bespoke and useless aircraft.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Sep 2022)

I don’t think the RCAF is looking to buy sub-standard aircraft.   Specifically on this one, the LRP fleet isn’t.  What we get, if we get anything, will not be determined by us or the RCAF at the end of the day.


----------



## KevinB (16 Sep 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I don’t think the RCAF is looking to buy sub-standard aircraft.   Specifically on this one, the LRP fleet isn’t.  What we get, if we get anything, will not be determined by us or the RCAF at the end of the day.


But maybe by US…


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Sep 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I don’t think the RCAF is looking to buy sub-standard aircraft.   Specifically on this one, the LRP fleet isn’t.  What we get, if we get anything, will not be determined by us or the RCAF at the end of the day.


A pragmatic split-fleet (I know, I know…trust me…not optimal) that could give the RCAF what it truly needs (P3) and what the Government wants (for arguments sake, sets say the DeHavilland/PAL P4) might be the least of the evils to get capability AND support Canadian industry in an *aviation mini-equivalent of the NSS program.


----------



## FSTO (16 Sep 2022)

Jesus Christ, Boeing Canada (based out of Winnipeg) and is a major supplier to the parent company. The city votes liberal most of the time and its located in Western Canada so there is a dual win for the current GoC. 
Just go out and buy the bloody things already.

Ya ya, "But the process Don, it's always the PROCESS!!!!!!!"






						Boeing Canada - Winnipeg
					






					www.boeing.ca
				




From the website
Boeing Winnipeg is one of the largest aerospace composite manufacturers in Canada. The company employs more than 1,000 people in 800,000 square feet of space in two locations in the city.

Boeing Winnipeg produces over 500 end item composite parts and assemblies for Boeing Commercial Airplanes. Major products include wing to body fairings, engine strut forward fairings, engine strut aft fairings, landing gear doors, and engine inlet inner barrels. Boeing Winnipeg designs and manufactures many innovative parts for the 787 Dreamliner as a Tier I partner to the program.


----------



## YZT580 (16 Sep 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> A pragmatic split-fleet (I know, I know…trust me…not optimal) that could give the RCAF what it truly needs (P3) and what the Government wants (for arguments sake, sets say the DeHavilland/PAL P4) might be the least of the evils to get capability AND support Canadian industry in an airboat ion mini-equivalent of the NSS program.


what is the purpose in having a patrol aircraft that can't eliminate the enemy?  What does it do, send a telegram to ask that it depart forthwith or else?


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Sep 2022)

YZT580 said:


> what is the purpose in having a patrol aircraft that can't eliminate the enemy?  What does it do, send a telegram to ask that it depart forthwith or else?


Ask the FORTE brothers…some folks don’t dismiss their ‘non-kineticness’ as useless…












						Live Flight Tracker - Real-Time Flight Tracker Map | Flightradar24
					

View flight  on Flightradar24




					www.flightradar24.com


----------



## Spencer100 (16 Sep 2022)

FSTO said:


> Jesus Christ, Boeing Canada (based out of Winnipeg) and is a major supplier to the parent company. The city votes liberal most of the time and its located in Western Canada so there is a dual win for the current GoC.
> Just go out and buy the bloody things already.
> 
> Ya ya, "But the process Don, it's always the PROCESS!!!!!!!"
> ...


Winnipeg......your response answers itself.


----------



## dimsum (16 Sep 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Ask the FORTE brothers…some folks don’t dismiss their ‘non-kineticness’ as useless…
> 
> View attachment 73577
> 
> ...


If the new aircraft patrolled at 50000’ and its crews were in Canada…

But FORTE and it’s ilk were intended to complement strike assets.


----------



## Spencer100 (16 Sep 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> A pragmatic split-fleet (I know, I know…trust me…not optimal) that could give the RCAF what it truly needs (P3) and what the Government wants (for arguments sake, sets say the DeHavilland/PAL P4) might be the least of the evils to get capability AND support Canadian industry in an airboat ion mini-equivalent of the NSS program.


I kind of like the idea.  But supporting Dehavilland is not something this will do. As Bombardier is not in the business anymore.  

If they had wanted to support them they could have purchased Twin Otters years ago with zero political blowback.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Sep 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> I kind of like the idea.  But supporting Dehavilland is not something this will do. As Bombardier is not in the business anymore.
> 
> If they had wanted to support them they could have purchased Twin Otters years ago with zero political blowback.


@Spencer100, that was true up until a year and a bit ago. 

DeHavilland pulled a ‘Phoenix’ (the good, reincarnated bird kind, not the shitty government public servant non-pay system kind) a few years ago and very much is alive and reasonably well.






						Home | De Havilland
					






					dehavilland.com


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Sep 2022)

dimsum said:


> If the new aircraft patrolled at 50000’ and its crews were in Canada…
> 
> But FORTE and it’s ilk were intended to complement strike assets.


Hey man, I wasn’t part of the crowd that rebranded themselves from ASW to LRP (MPA) to be less visibly ‘killy’ and more ‘looky’… 😉


----------



## Spencer100 (16 Sep 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> @Spencer100, that was true up until a year and a bit ago.
> 
> DeHavilland pulled a ‘Phoenix’ (the good, reincarnated bird kind, not the shitty government public servant non-pay system kind) a few years ago and very much is alive and reasonably well.
> 
> ...


Oh I know DeHavilland is back.  The history buff in me loves that Viking and PE firm rebranded back into DeHavilland.  I was make less a comment about the DHC then being more a snide comment about this government more concerned about the old Bombardier and Family than other workers and companies.  LIke everyone is equal just some are more equal then others.  

OT the whole dust up about Boeing a few years back, the Winnipeg was totally forgotten and thrown under the bus. 

This whole thing just burns my....

Trudeau has made a total mess of this file.  Starting with the no F-35...this leads to OK we have a fighter gap, hey RCAF general get me a fighter gap.  Liberals then say we will just buy F-18E,F as a quick purchase to fill the gap as an interim.  They just think its the same as we have CF-18 equal CF-18E no one will care.  And they can punt the rest of the purchase to the future and the new CF-18E will be in the pole position to win the whole thing.  This will fit with Trudeau's no F-35 election promise.  

But then Oh NO! Boeing wins Trade Tribunal ruling against favourite son Bombardier. US government sanctions Bombardier   At about this time Delta orders the CS220.   Bombardier is having financial problems too.  The bomber goes to Airbus and agrees for them to assemble US purchased CS220 in their new US plant to avoid US tariffs. 

Bombardier sells Airbus control of the CS220 program and the Caisse too.  They later buy 100%.

Over in Ottawa the government throws a fit.  And returns sanctions to Boeing.  This ends the interim f-18E buy.  (no one cares about the Winnipeg plant at this point) 

 But what to do?......they made a fighter gap....and we can't just buy the F-35......Ok Australia is dumping their old F-18 for the new F-35.  Great lets just buy those.  And then pay to Canadianize them and bring to fighting form.

In the meantime Bombardier is in even more financial distress.  They begin the great BBD sell off everything. Rail to the Caisse and then Alstom.  The entire old Dehavilland product lines to Viking plus the Waterbomber and Short Bros 330 and Sherpa Type Certs.  The CRJ program goes to Mitsubishi.  Short Brothers and Other assembly locations in Mexico and Africa go to Spirit Aerosystems.  Lear is closed.  CAE buys training business.  ETC

So the Liberal Government moves on this file.....got what?  Some used f-18's, Bombardier still imploded taking millions in government money with it.  Years of delays to get back to place they were 7 years ago buying the F-35. Still no sign contract.  And because of fit about Boeing delaying who knows what other contracts.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Sep 2022)

We are of like minds, @Spencer100! 👍🏼


----------



## dimsum (16 Sep 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Hey man, I wasn’t part of the crowd that rebranded themselves from ASW to LRP (MPA) to be less visibly ‘killy’ and more ‘looky’… 😉


More like “we need to do something visible while all eyes are turned to Afghanistan”. 

We weren’t the only MPA fleet doing the rebrand.  Lots of other nations’ MPAs flew in Afghanistan and Iraq.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Sep 2022)

dimsum said:


> More like “we need to do something visible while all eyes are turned to Afghanistan”.
> 
> We weren’t the only MPA fleet doing the rebrand.  Lots of other nations’ MPAs flew in Afghanistan and Iraq.


Ack, but one must always be careful for what one wishes.  Rebranding, once the original brand is forgotten, like governments are oft want to do, can be a challenge to walk back to the ‘old days.’  Not that a back-in-the-day capability isn’t now needed, I appreciate that it is, but unless it’s a Government-driven, ‘DND along for the ride’ (like the Griffon was) push, refreshing/rebirthing/reimagining/re-whatevering a new version of an older concept won’t be without its challenges.  #beentheregotthetshirt 😉


----------



## Spencer100 (16 Sep 2022)

Liberals screwed the aerospace file...

Just wait till the Automotive file outcomes comes to light.  Even bigger billions spent.

Billions to all the automakers with plants in Canada and billions to Asian battery suppliers.  Its funny the new $5 Billion LG Chem (Stallantis) plant is being built next door to the last Green energy great idea the CS Wind (Samsung) plant the Ont Liberals subsided to the tune of millions. Open and closed in four years after subsidized wind turbines stopped being built in Ontario. 

I wish the government would stop picking winners and losers they are not very good at it.  Just create an atmosphere that companies can succeed.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Sep 2022)

YZT580 said:


> what is the purpose in having a patrol aircraft that can't eliminate the enemy?  What does it do, send a telegram to ask that it depart forthwith or else?



Directly related - Canada put 3 Arcturus aircraft on the line.  They all burned thru their hours and are laid up in the desert or museums.   It was basically an Aurora minus the ASW kit and with a better SS radar.   

We’ve done it before…


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Sep 2022)

dimsum said:


> More like “we need to do something visible while all eyes are turned to Afghanistan”.
> 
> We weren’t the only MPA fleet doing the rebrand.  Lots of other nations’ MPAs flew in Afghanistan and Iraq.



But, they did more to make the aircraft tactically relevant.  P-3 LSRS and AIP come to mind quickly for the USN…


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Sep 2022)

I like P-8 because it’s “been done and is working”.   We would likely Canadianize it which means make it clunky and under-weaponed.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Sep 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> A pragmatic split-fleet (I know, I know…trust me…not optimal) that could give the RCAF what it truly needs (P3) and what the Government wants (for arguments sake, sets say the DeHavilland/PAL P4) might be the least of the evils to get capability AND support Canadian industry in an airboat ion mini-equivalent of the NSS program.



I’m starting to be more open about this as a reality, to be honest.  There are some valuable options for using the remaining like on the 140
and some significant monies were invested into the 14 remaining.  

Back in 67, Dad did his OTU on Neptune.  He then went to 415 and did his conversion course to Argus while on Sqn.  Hmmmm…

Main negative factor for 140s; cost per hour of operation.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Sep 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I’m starting to be more open about this as a reality, to be honest.  There are some valuable options for using the remaining like on the 140
> and some significant monies were invested into the 14 remaining.
> 
> Back in 67, Dad did his OTU on Neptune.  He then went to 415 and did his conversion course to Argus while on Sqn.  Hmmmm…
> ...


What about a dual P3 and P8 fleet, what would that us froma tactical, ASW perspective? (yes I know about the training and maintenance) But is there a worthwhile benefit from the other side of the coin?


----------



## dimsum (16 Sep 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> What about a dual P3 and P8 fleet, what would that us froma tactical, ASW perspective? (yes I know about the training and maintenance) But is there a worthwhile benefit from the other side of the coin?


Without getting into too many details, the P-8 is designed to replace the P-3.  The MQ-4C Triton RPAS is supposed to work alongside the P-8 - it started as the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Project.

It would probably make more sense to have an RPAS (Triton or other) and P-8 pair up, rather than P-3 and P-8.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Sep 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> What about a dual P3 and P8 fleet, what would that us froma tactical, ASW perspective? (yes I know about the training and maintenance) But is there a worthwhile benefit from the other side of the coin?



I would be thinking of making the 140 fleet a domestic op and trg platform, and P-8 fleet to the operational Sqns.  The 140 is a great search platform and has some limited rescue ability (SKAD/ASKAD). 

It’s also costly to operate/hour of flight.  But we just sank significant $ into the fleet.

The Block 3 and 4 have done co-op successfully with P-8.  The question isn’t so much based on airframes as it is avionics, weapons and the tactics that match up with those.  I’m not convinced the GOC is willing to invest in ASW the way the USN and others are moving to.  It will cost a lot more to “get a wpn in the water” from altitude.   

I’m not convinced the option will be “both” from the GOC though.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Sep 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I’m not convinced the GOC is willing to invest in ASW the way the USN and others are moving to.  It will cost a lot more to “get a wpn in the water” from altitude.
> 
> I’m not convinced the option will be “both” from the GOC though.


if it was one only, I honestly wouldn’t be surprised to see the GoC direct a P4/Q400 platform.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Sep 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> if it was one only, I honestly wouldn’t be surprised to see the GoC direct a P4/Q400 platform.



Neither would I; our govt cares more about votes than military capability. 

The real discussion should be centered around avionics/mission/comms systems and weapons and…number of replacement aircraft. 

Unfortunately, “we” don’t have an impressive recent history with military aircraft procurement.   C17 is the last one I think we can mention and get this reaction to…







MH, FWSAR…more like this…






Fighters?


----------



## dimsum (17 Sep 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> C17 is the last one I think we can mention and get this reaction to…


Was the Chinook bought before or after C-17?


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Sep 2022)

dimsum said:


> Was the Chinook bought before or after C-17?


I’m going to give EITS props for including the 5th C-17 being delivered after all 15 CH-147F were delivered. 😉

(Still all on Harper’s watch, BTW)


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2022)

⚠️ Off topic⚠️ and _Geezer eruption_

It's fairly important to remember that the C-17s, the _Chinooks_, the new_ish_  C-130Js and the new _Leopard_ tanks were all purchased, by direction, by one Minister of National Defence. In the process, he made himself wildly unpopular with the entire bureaucracy, from PCO on down, with the military, especially, the CDS of the day, who was both publicly and politically very popular, and with the PM and PMO.

Gordon O'Connor told the CDS that he (O'Conor) didn't give a flying fig about the CDS' views on equipment: it was the government's responsibility to equip the military, the CDS is allowed to advise ... that's it. Constitutionally, O'Connor was 100% correct. 

O'Connor told the supply and procurement bureaucrats that they didn't need "competition." Anyone and everyone, he said, knew that there was no practical alternative to any of the C-17, _Chinook_, C-130J or _Leopards_. They knew it too, he said, and all they needed was enough balls to make the right decisions .. or just get out of his way.

To the PM and PMO he is reputed to have said something like: "It's *our* war, now, and they are *our* sailors, soldiers and flyers and we are responsible for their very lives. If we send them to their deaths in _G-Wagons_ rather than proper APCs and tanks then you, Stephen Harper, must meet every flippin' flight that brings their bodies home and you must explain *your* choices to every widow and mother."

Gordon O'Connor was, in my view, the best MND since Brooke Claxton (1946-54) who, against the united, coordinated wishes of his admirals and generals, built the military force that Canada needed ... as opposed to the one that the admirals and generals wanted.

Claxton was a success because he was doing what the PM of the day wanted and that PM expected his ministers run their own departments. O'Connor failed, politically, because he had neither public nor top-level political support for doing the right things. O'Connor was, still and all, a better MND than all of Paul Hellyer, Bud Drury, Kim Campbell, Bill Graham, Peter MacKay, Harjit Sajjan and Anita Anand combined.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Sep 2022)

😬


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Nov 2022)

Thought I'd throw something in on this thread.

From Feb 2022:  https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public...roject_request_for_information_02.10.2022.pdf

Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), on behalf of the Department of National Defence (DND), is seeking input from industry and other stakeholders on the High Level Mandatory Requirements (HLMR) and capability requirements pertaining to the replacement of the CP140 Aurora fleet, including industry’s interest, capability and experience to provide a long-range, long-endurance, multi-mission aircraft that meet these requirements.

Entitled Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft (CMMA), this replacement aircraft will be required by the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) to provide the following minimum operational capabilities, which are defined in Annex A:


Search and Rescue (SAR);
Command, Control, Communications, Computers (C4), Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) (C4ISR);
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW);
Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW);
Communications Relay;
Network Extension; and
Overland Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR).  (defined some more in Annex A)

The effort that will result in replacement of this fleet, known as the CMMA Project, will directly support the following Defence Policy Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE) Initiatives, outlined at https://www.canada.ca/en/department...policies-standards/canada-defence-policy.html:


#49 - Acquire next generation multi-mission aircraft (CP140 Aurora maritime patrol aircraft replacement); and
#67 - Invest in Joint Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) platforms, including next generation surveillance aircraft.

In addition, CMMA Project will also indirectly support the following Defence Policy SSE Initiatives:


#62 - Acquire joint command and control systems and equipment, specifically for integrated information technology and communications;
#68 - Integrate existing and future assets into a networked, joint system-of-systems that will enable the flow of information among multiple, interconnected platforms and operational headquarters;
#72 - Establish a Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) targeting capability to better leverage intelligence capabilities to support military operations; - - - #106 - Enhance the mobility, reach and footprint of the CAF in Canada’s North to support operations, exercises, and the CAF ability to project force into the region; and
#111 - Modernize North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) to meet existing challenges and evolving threats to North America, taking into account the full range of threats.

From Annex C - OPTIONS BEING CONSIDERED   (HLMR = high level mandatory requirements)

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.

- Buy 2 x MOTS. Two fleets of new manned MOTS aircraft that share a common airframe but have different configurations would be procured. Together this mixed fleet would meet all HLMRs, with minimal or no modification required.

- Buy MOTS and UAS. A fleet of new manned MOTS aircraft and a fleet of new Unmanned Air Systems (UAS) would be procured. Together this mixed fleet would meet all HLMRs, with minimal or no modification required.


----------



## CICOPS (21 Nov 2022)

A decision should be made sometime around 2040.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Nov 2022)

CICOPS said:


> A decision should be made sometime around 2040.



Maybe a little bit earlier...this wheel is turning, just not in a way that anyone (who shouldn't) can hear the squeaks in the background...


----------



## GR66 (21 Nov 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Thought I'd throw something in on this thread.
> 
> From Feb 2022:  https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public...roject_request_for_information_02.10.2022.pdf
> 
> ...


This is one of those situations where the CAF/GOC seems to pretend we live in glorious isolation.  MOTS, modified MOTS, new design based on COTS, two different MOTS, MOTS and UAS.  Is ANY option being left off the table?  

Let's see...what are our major defence partners using?

USA?  P-8
UK?  P-8
Australia?  P-8
New Zealand?  P-8
Germany?  P-8
Norway?  P-8
South Korea?  P-8
India?  P-8?

At any point does someone say "All of our major allies are using the P-8.  It's a proven, existing platform.  It would give us commonality and interoperability as well as shared logistics potential.  Are there any deal breakers with the P-8 which make it unsuitable for Canada as well?  No?  Then lets go with the P-8".


----------



## rmc_wannabe (21 Nov 2022)

GR66 said:


> This is one of those situations where the CAF/GOC seems to pretend we live in glorious isolation.  MOTS, modified MOTS, new design based on COTS, two different MOTS, MOTS and UAS.  Is ANY option being left off the table?
> 
> Let's see...what are our major defence partners using?
> 
> ...


Whoa whoa whoa whoa...... 


Have you thought about how that kind of logic impacts Bombardier and the rest of our robust defense aviation industry... 😉


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Nov 2022)

GR66 said:


> This is one of those situations where the CAF/GOC seems to pretend we live in glorious isolation.  MOTS, modified MOTS, new design based on COTS, two different MOTS, MOTS and UAS.  Is ANY option being left off the table?
> 
> Let's see...what are our major defence partners using?
> 
> ...



It is usually the way we do procurement of aircraft systems;  I mean, just look at the Cyclone...we just did what our biggest Allies are....errr


----------



## YZT580 (21 Nov 2022)

GR66 said:


> This is one of those situations where the CAF/GOC seems to pretend we live in glorious isolation.  MOTS, modified MOTS, new design based on COTS, two different MOTS, MOTS and UAS.  Is ANY option being left off the table?
> 
> Let's see...what are our major defence partners using?
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, the P-8 is not the most ideal for SAR and our current fleet is hopelessly inadequate so we need two fleets


----------



## dimsum (21 Nov 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> It is usually the way we do procurement of aircraft systems;  I mean, just look at the Cyclone...we just did what our biggest Allies are....errr


I hate to defend the Cyclone, but it’s not like all of our allies were using the same platform either.  

Lots of countries use lots of different MH.  Meanwhile, the P-8 is used by 4 of the 5 Eyes, plus other allies.


----------



## suffolkowner (21 Nov 2022)

What is the alternative? The Japanese plane? Seems like more of a slamdunk than the Airbus 330?  And have the rules not been refined to require an operational system in use by our allies? Pretty sure Ive read that a couple of times


----------



## KevinB (21 Nov 2022)

dimsum said:


> I hate to defend the Cyclone, but it’s not like all of our allies were using the same platform either.


Yet not one of those use the Cyclone… 
     [sarcam]Orphan fleet for the win [/sarcam]


dimsum said:


> Lots of countries use lots of different MH.  Meanwhile, the P-8 is used by 4 of the 5 Eyes, plus other allies.


Well 2 others use 60’s, but yes pick a unique bespoke platform and wonder why it has cost overruns And issues.


----------



## Zoomie (22 Nov 2022)

Better hurry up - Boeing is shutting down P8 line “soon”, IOT start cranking out E7 wedgies


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Nov 2022)

YZT580 said:


> Unfortunately, the P-8 is not the most ideal for SAR and our current fleet is hopelessly inadequate so we need two fleets



I thought we were talking ASW/MPA/LRP?

And besides, a flying P-8 would seem to be better at maritime SAR than a non-flying CC-295…


----------



## YZT580 (22 Nov 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> View attachment 75061
> I thought we were talking ASW/MPA/LRP?
> 
> And besides, a flying P-8 would seem to be better at maritime SAR than a non-flying CC-295…


We are but SAR was part of the solicitation request.


----------



## FSTO (22 Nov 2022)

YZT580 said:


> We are but SAR was part of the solicitation request.


Was that a mistake to put SAR at the top of the list?


----------



## GR66 (22 Nov 2022)

YZT580 said:


> Unfortunately, the P-8 is not the most ideal for SAR and our current fleet is hopelessly inadequate so we need two fleets


We are looking for a multi-role aircraft.  It's unlikely that any single airframe will be IDEAL for any one of the requirements compared to a dedicated single-role aircraft.  The question is whether the P-8 is good enough (or can be made good enough) for the SAR role in addition to the other roles we're wanting it for.

That's where my initial question "Are there any deal breakers with the P-8 which make it unsuitable for Canada as well?" comes in to play.  

If the shortcomings in the P-8's SAR capabilities are in fact a deal breaker in meeting Canada's requirements, then go ahead and look at other options.  That might be a different single airframe solution (if one exists without capability shortcomings that are "deal breakers" in any of the other required roles) or possibly two separate platforms.

My point is, rather than treating every new acquisition as a "clean sheet" project we should instead look first at what is already in widespread use with our allies and rule them out first as unsuitable before we go looking at bespoke options.


----------



## Spencer100 (22 Nov 2022)

GR66 said:


> We are looking for a multi-role aircraft.  It's unlikely that any single airframe will be IDEAL for any one of the requirements compared to a dedicated single-role aircraft.  The question is whether the P-8 is good enough (or can be made good enough) for the SAR role in addition to the other roles we're wanting it for.
> 
> That's where my initial question "Are there any deal breakers with the P-8 which make it unsuitable for Canada as well?" comes in to play.
> 
> ...


Yes the deal breaker is Boeing.   There is a Quebec family that is still very upset.


----------



## GR66 (22 Nov 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Yes the deal breaker is Boeing.   There is a Quebec family that is still very upset.


When they field a product that can meet all the requirements then I'll care how upset they are.


----------



## Spencer100 (22 Nov 2022)

GR66 said:


> When they field a product that can meet all the requirements then I'll care how upset they are.


It has nothing to do about them selling something they make.  It's now about the total destruction of Canada ever having a global OEM airframer.   Boeing started the ball rolling and it lead to the implosion of the company.


----------



## suffolkowner (22 Nov 2022)

Is the P-8 unsuitable for SAR or just a poor choice. Is there a need for another platform to take the strain off the ASW? Does it have to be manned? Is it more economical to run another platform. SAR would seem to be a secondary job at best and if the CC-295's problems arent resolved by the time the Aurora's replacement reaches IOC then we have other problems as well


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Nov 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> It has nothing to do about them selling something they make.  It's now about the total destruction of Canada ever having a global OEM airframer.   Boeing started the ball rolling and it lead to the implosion of the company.


The inconvenient truth turns out the Bombardier was looking to dump the C-Series anyway.  If they hadn’t been, they wouldn’t have jumped all over Airbus’s offer to assume all rights and obligations building the C100/300.  Bombardier wanted to streamline to the always lucrative/high profit activity of business jets, hence why they retained the Global Express/Challenger products (and would do so to their deaths).

Was Boeing a catalyst? Yes.  Was Boeing the cause of Canada’s aeronautical welfare system being taken down a notch? Not by a long shot.


----------



## dimsum (22 Nov 2022)

YZT580 said:


> We are but SAR was part of the solicitation request.


Yeah, but that’s only because the P-3 (and Aurora) can drop a SKAD. 

Technically any CAF aircraft or ship is a secondary SAR asset.  It doesn’t mean it has to do all the SAR related tasks.


----------



## Spencer100 (22 Nov 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> The inconvenient truth turns out the Bombardier was looking to dump the C-Series anyway.  If they hadn’t been, they wouldn’t have jumped all over Airbus’s offer to assume all rights and obligations building the C100/300.  Bombardier wanted to streamline to the always lucrative/high profit activity of business jets, hence why they retained the Global Express/Challenger products (and would do so to their deaths).
> 
> Was Boeing a catalyst? Yes.  Was Boeing the cause of Canada’s aeronautical welfare system being taken down a notch? Not by a long shot.


Yes 100% but my point is that there is a mindset in Ottawa/Montreal that Boeing was the bad guy.  So I am putting my bet down now that as long as Justin Libs are government nothing with be move forward on this file.  One they can point to the CP-140 upgrade right now.  Two say we are looking at options.  Then run the clock out on the P-8 magically say see not available.  Then do a COTS buy (Airbus) with someone integrating a sensor suite for a Canadian special in the 2030 timeframe.  Success!


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Nov 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Yes 100% but my point is that there is a mindset in Ottawa/Montreal that Boeing was the bad guy.


 
 Tracking that, but not 100% believe that Boeing was the baddy here.  Many in industry knew it was exactly as I noted above.  The Govt can remain as delusional as it wishes…



Spencer100 said:


> So I am putting my bet down now that as long as Justin Libs are government nothing with be move forward on this file.  One they can point to the CP-140 upgrade right now.  Two say we are looking at options.  Then run the clock out on the P-8 magically say see not available.  Then do a COTS buy (Airbus) with someone integrating a sensor suite for a Canadian special in the 2030 timeframe.  Success!



I think that while that may be their position, they will soon find that there are “other factors at play” and they will see that the situation may warrant pragmatic reconsideration and pursuit of other options…


----------



## KevinB (22 Nov 2022)

Canada is buying P-8’s and the sooner as the Canadian Government accepts that directive the sooner other issues can be dealt with. 

So I gather from the PSpec there that the Kingfisher has been OBE, but also that two platforms may be acquired. 

So more J Herc’s and P-8’s - let’s light this fuse and call it a day.


----------



## Spencer100 (22 Nov 2022)

Thread highjacking....

Boeing is not in the good books for a totally different reason.  (Nothing to with Bombardier)









						Boeing certification troubles in Canada ground 1st WestJet freighters
					

Canada’s WestJet plans to start flying cargo jets next year after a frustrating wait to get the planes registered.




					www.freightwaves.com


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Nov 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Thread highjacking....
> 
> Boeing is not in the good books for a totally different reason.  (Nothing to with Bombardier)
> 
> ...


So, FAA is giving Boeing the gears due to the MAX issue, delaying Boeing’s entirely unrelated SB release needed for TC to rubber stamp the mod for use in Canada, for an engineering mod effectively identical to that which ALE implemented an STC for TC’s approval to use similar mods on -800s in Canada.  Sounds like an FAA/TC cockblock, not Boeing not doing the work (which was done and delivered while the FAA slow-rolls Boeing’s SB).


----------



## YZT580 (22 Nov 2022)

KevinB said:


> Canada is buying P-8’s and the sooner as the Canadian Government accepts that directive the sooner other issues can be dealt with.
> 
> So I gather from the PSpec there that the Kingfisher has been OBE, but also that two platforms may be acquired.
> 
> So more J Herc’s and P-8’s - let’s light this fuse and call it a day.


are you proposing J herc's for SAR then and ditching the 295


----------



## GR66 (22 Nov 2022)

YZT580 said:


> are you proposing J herc's for SAR then and ditching the 295


I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the 295 to get ditched.  That would involve admitting a mistake and wasting money.  Something that simply won't happen.


----------



## GR66 (22 Nov 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Yes 100% but my point is that there is a mindset in Ottawa/Montreal that Boeing was the bad guy.  So I am putting my bet down now that as long as Justin Libs are government nothing with be move forward on this file.  One they can point to the CP-140 upgrade right now.  Two say we are looking at options.  Then run the clock out on the P-8 magically say see not available.  Then do a COTS buy (Airbus) with someone integrating a sensor suite for a Canadian special in the 2030 timeframe.  Success!


Unless Airbus offers a MPA based on the same airframe as the MRTT we're buying (and I haven't seen any indication that they are) then I think the P-8 is still the only real option.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Nov 2022)

YZT580 said:


> Unfortunately, the P-8 is not the most ideal for SAR and our current fleet is hopelessly inadequate so we need two fleets



SAR is not the main LoT we need the 140 replacement to be capable of.  No it doesn't matter if it is the first on the list of Op Cap's.  Properly employed, these aircraft aren't sitting around waiting to launch when JRCC gets a call.  

Put a SKAD or ASKAD in the bombbay and you'll have the same capability the 140 fleet has.  Pretty groovy at search, very limited on "rescue".


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Nov 2022)

dimsum said:


> I hate to defend the Cyclone, but it’s not like all of our allies were using the same platform either.



No, but we didn't even use what any of them were already using or developing...so we have a very small fleet that NO ONE else uses, or likely will ever use.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Nov 2022)

Zoomie said:


> Better hurry up - Boeing is shutting down P8 line “soon”, IOT start cranking out E7 wedgies



I suspect the answer will be public soon...


----------



## Weinie (22 Nov 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> So, FAA is giving Boeing the gears due to the MAX issue, delaying Boeing’s entirely unrelated SB release needed for TC to rubber stamp the mod for use in Canada, for an engineering mod effectively identical to that which ALE implemented an STC for TC’s approval to use similar mods on -800s in Canada.  Sounds like an FAA/TC cockblock, not Boeing not doing the work (which was done and delivered while the FAA slow-rolls Boeing’s SB).


G2G,

I love you man, but sometimes you talk too technical gibberish. Post above went completely above my head. (yesI know that I am short)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Nov 2022)

FSTO said:


> Was that a mistake to put SAR at the top of the list?



No...not to me.  Every RCAF aircraft that isn't a primary SAR airframe has SAR as a secondary tasking.

The 140 has sensors, some search stores and a SKAD/Arctic SKAD capability to make it a "SAR platform".  SKADs and A/SKADs are carried on the BRUs 15/a's and released pretty much the same way a torp is.

Just make your Cdn P-8 bombbay config capable of dropping a torp and not much needs to be changed/added to drop a SKAD/Arctic SKAD.

Sea SKAD (always just called SKAD = Survival Kit Air Droppable); consists of two 10-person life rafts, each with an attached package of survival equipment, connected by 900 feet of buoyant rope.

Arctic SKAD;  consists of life sustaining equipment to survivors on land or ice. It is packaged in a fibreglass shell, and looks almost exactly like a SKAD, except it has white container assembly.  The contents (3 seperate packages, 2 of which hold personnel clothing and equip, 1 of which holds equipment such as tents, stoves, sleeping bags, water and food rations) are orange and deploy under a parachute with strobe lights and sirens - the idea is survivors will run to the packages, not the white fiberglass shell.  A single A/SKAD can provide 3 layers protection for 20 people plus the tents, stoves, etc.

A few pics attached of a SKAD being loaded, dropped and deployed, all from UNCLASS material.







My main point?  There is nothing mystical and magical about the Aurora that makes it effective as a SAR aircraft.  It can do it but it isn't the best Fixed Wing SAR platform;  I've done real world overland and maritime SAR with it and it has capabilities...and limitations, some of them significant (ability to illuminate the search track at night being a big one...i.e. no decent search lights).  Noboby is coming out the door with kit and training to 'save lives' either.

If I'm out in blue water and sinking and a Cdn SAR is coming, I'm hoping it's a P-8 burning up the fuel with a set of SKADs on board...followed by a Herc and Corm team with the real SAR pro crews coming to do what they do best.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Nov 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> Is the P-8 unsuitable for SAR or just a poor choice.



Neither;  it just has to be configd to carry our current SKAD (easy to do, we've already done it with the P-3).



suffolkowner said:


> Is there a need for another platform to take the strain off the ASW?



Sea Guardian would be nice, but...don't hold your breathe.  What we need is more money, in which we could get more aircraft and crews to fly and maintain them.  Open the purse strings in Ottawa and I'd go mixed fleet of Sea Guardian or equiv, and crewed MPAs.  

If only 1 fleet is the option (reality), crewed MPA.



suffolkowner said:


> Does it have to be manned?



Yes


suffolkowner said:


> Is it more economical to run another platform.



Not in the RCAF, IMO.



suffolkowner said:


> SAR would seem to be a secondary job at best and if the CC-295's problems arent resolved by the time the Aurora's replacement reaches IOC then we have other problems as well



SAR needs to solve SAR.  LRP needs to solve LRP.  We are different fleets with different FE realities.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Nov 2022)

Weinie said:


> G2G,
> 
> I love you man, but sometimes you talk too technical gibberish. Post above went completely above my head. (yesI know that I am short)


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Nov 2022)

Weinie said:


> G2G,
> 
> I love you man, but sometimes you talk too technical gibberish. Post above went completely above my head. (yesI know that I am short)


@Weinie, you understood the “cockblock” part though, right?  😉


----------



## dapaterson (22 Nov 2022)

Airbus was considering the A320, not A330, as a potential multi mission aircraft.









						A320neo M3A Modular Multi-Mission Aircraft
					

Airbus introduced A320neo M3A (Modular Multi-Mission Aircraft) concept, a military derivative of A320neo commercial jet, in July 2018.




					www.naval-technology.com


----------



## dimsum (22 Nov 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


>


There's an update!








> Sea Guardian would be nice, but...don't hold your breathe.  What we need is more money, in which we could get more aircraft and crews to fly and maintain them.  Open the purse strings in Ottawa and I'd go mixed fleet of Sea Guardian or equiv, and crewed MPAs.


The difference between Sea Guardian and Sky Guardian, aside from the name, is a maritime radar.  Which can be also put on the Sky Guardian. 

It's the same aircraft with some other pods.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Nov 2022)

What every (pilot) skipper hears during the ASO brief...😁


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Nov 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Neither;  it just has to be configd to carry our current SKAD (easy to do, we've already done it with the P-3).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My guess is that they put SAR in there because of the duckbutt role the Aurora typically plays.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Nov 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> My guess is that they put SAR in there because of the duckbutt role the Aurora typically plays.


…at least it’s a truly military role.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Nov 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> My guess is that they put SAR in there because of the duckbutt role the Aurora typically plays.



That too;  I think they put SAR in there and at the top because Joe and Jane Public know what that is (kind of).

I would say during my Op Sqn tour, the crews I was on were involved in SAR taskings/missions 3-4 times a year and it's something we practice pretty frequently, across the fleet.  Our "handbook" is 123 pages of lessons learned over many years.


----------



## MTShaw (24 Nov 2022)

GR66 said:


> This is one of those situations where the CAF/GOC seems to pretend we live in glorious isolation.  MOTS, modified MOTS, new design based on COTS, two different MOTS, MOTS and UAS.  Is ANY option being left off the table?
> 
> Let's see...what are our major defence partners using?
> 
> ...


It’s a proven platform only if it works for us. The P-8 is only an ASW plane and not what is said above. So it would be holy sh!t modified MOTS. and in the end no longer what the other allies run.

Also that the power required to operate all of these systems would be a problem for a 737ng, no matter how much the alternators were altered.

I’m not a Boeing hater btw, I just think the P-8 is to small with to short a legs.


----------



## dimsum (24 Nov 2022)

MTShaw said:


> It’s a proven platform only if it works for us. The P-8 is only an ASW plane and not what is said above. So it would be holy sh!t modified MOTS. and in the end no longer what the other allies run.


What else is being said above, aside from "SAR" (as in dropping a SKAD)? 



MTShaw said:


> Also that the power required to operate all of these systems would be a problem for a 737ng, no matter how much the alternators were altered.


Doesn't the P-8 do that already?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Nov 2022)

@MTShaw Ever been in one?  I have.  They're bigger than an Aurora on the inside, and laid out very nicely.  I'd love to have that tac tube to work in.






"Only ASW";  I've done co-op with P-8s doing high-alt surveillance tasks on operations.  I've done co-op with them on low-level, non-ASW tasks where they were working 200' off the surface, just like we were.  I've done co-op ASW with them.  They just get on station faster and can re-position faster than we can in a P-3.  Op Cap's listed as required:


Search and Rescue (SAR);  (I can't think of anything an Aurora does that a P-8 couldn't do, but get there faster to do it)
Command, Control, Communications, Computers (C4), Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) (C4ISR); (avionics, software and comms based hard capability, personnel/trg based soft cap)
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW); (no brainer)
Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW); (both the USN and RAAF can and already have launched kill stores from wing pylons)  









						Australian P-8A Poseidon fires first Harpoon missile during sinking exercise
					

The Australian P-8A Poseidon aircraft has achieved another milestone successfully firing its first Harpoon anti-ship missile during exercise RIMPAC 18 off Hawaii. The ATM-84J Harpoon missile was launched from the aircraft to sink its target, decommissioned US Navy ship USS Racine. Australian...




					www.navaltoday.com
				












						The US Navy's top sub-hunting plane conducted a first-of-its-kind missile launch in Europe's high north
					

The Harpoon missile launches off Norway's northern coast are the latest military activity in the increasingly busy waters around Europe's high north.




					www.businessinsider.com
				




Communications Relay; (avionics and SW, easy)
Network Extension; and (avionics and SW, and the USN is ahead of the RCAF on this one)
Overland Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR). (I'm willing to go out on a limb and guess the P-8 TLE is a lower Cat than what the '140 had in Libya and Iraq/Syria.  If the P-8 has a multimode RADAR capable of GMTI and SAR imagery, and a EOIR turret...along with LOS/BLOS FMV capability...voila.  This is a very simplified example of a very complex mission type, for discussion ease).

Would we Canadianize it?  Sure.  Just like every other nation (none of them are the exact same...no different than the P-3 fleets were/are).

Short legs...no problem.  Power...not sure what the issue is.  Everyone else is running these with full, modern avionics, sensors and the other expected stuff.


I was a P-8 skeptic back years ago;  used to 4 engines, turbo-prop etc etc and joined in on the "bah.  HUMBUG!" opinion of P-8.  I'm no longer so short-sighted.  Don't get my wrong, I've spent quite of bit of time flying on Block 2, 3 and now 4 Aurora and this aircraft will always hold a place in my heart.  She's done her duty for Canada and I was lucky enough to be a part of some of that.

It's just time for her to, you know, get in on a time-share down in Florida and enjoy retirement.


----------



## dimsum (25 Nov 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> It's just time for her to, you know, get in on a time-share down in Florida AMARC and enjoy retirement.


----------



## armrdsoul77 (25 Nov 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> It's just time for her to, you know, get in on a time-share down in Florida and enjoy retirement.


Maybe chase storms on the weekend....


----------



## MTShaw (25 Nov 2022)

dimsum said:


> What else is being said above, aside from "SAR" (as in dropping a SKAD)?



The amount of computing that will take to synthesize all the information and share it with other nodes in the network would be much higher than purely AWS plane. Like a supercomputer flying around with you.



dimsum said:


> Doesn't the P-8 do that already?



A jet engine can only provide so much power. I don’t know exactly how big the generators/alternators are on a CFM56 For the 737. I don’t know if  CFM/Boeing upgraded the power available.  

The 787/A350 have engines large enough to swallow a 737 and have two alternators per engine as opposed the standard (an assumed on my part) one per engine for the 737. That is a concern. 

Finally range. A business jet A350 can fly 20000 km (i do recognize two crews) where as a Business 737 can fly ~12000km. So that might be important given loiterning over the arctic from FOL Yellowknife still is a stretch at 20000km.

This is of course conjecture on my part. 

Just my two Loonies.


----------



## dimsum (25 Nov 2022)

MTShaw said:


> The amount of computing that will take to synthesize all the information and share it with other nodes in the network would be much higher than purely AWS plane. Like a supercomputer flying around with you.


I'm sorry - I don't follow.  What does the amount of computing power have to do with whether the aircraft is an ASW-centric aircraft or not?  What you're saying doesn't take all that much computing power if it's just sharing its own info to the net.  



MTShaw said:


> Finally range. A business jet A350 can fly 20000 km (i do recognize two crews) where as a Business 737 can fly ~12000km. So that might be important given loiterning over the arctic from FOL Yellowknife still is a stretch at 20000km.


Is loitering over Alert (for example) from FOL Yellowknife a mandatory requirement though?  I have no idea if it is or not.  

Also, don't forget that the RCAF is looking at RPAS which could also do the surveillance piece, as well as satellites.


----------



## MTShaw (25 Nov 2022)

dimsum said:


> I'm sorry - I don't follow.  What does the amount of computing power have to do with whether the aircraft is an ASW-centric aircraft or not?  What you're saying doesn't take all that much computing power if it's just sharing its own info to the net.
> 
> 
> Is loitering over Alert (for example) from FOL Yellowknife a mandatory requirement though?  I have no idea if it is or not.
> ...





dimsum said:


> I'm sorry - I don't follow.  What does the amount of computing power have to do with whether the aircraft is an ASW-centric aircraft or not?  What you're saying doesn't take all that much computing power if it's just sharing its own info to the net.
> 
> 
> Is loitering over Alert (for example) from FOL Yellowknife a mandatory requirement though?  I have no idea if it is or not.
> ...


Computing power always depends on what you are trying to share. If the P? Is strictly a relay for low latency communication that is quite easy. If the P? Needs to change this and feed information to CF-35s and a CSC plus Ottawa RPAS and even North Bay, the compute power becomes an issue (That is buy definition of 5th and 6th generation warfare) Shitloads of information  Shipping only interdiction is the most obvious role obvious role but not the most difficult to build. 

We do have MQ-9Bs on the way but it depends how low latency time the communications  for the RPAS need to be. So if it needs a simple then the P8 would do  Having a metric sh!t load of range, power and communications gives options. 

I’m just trying to speculate what would be best for Canada given how far away everything is from everything else.


----------



## dimsum (25 Nov 2022)

MTShaw said:


> Computing power always depends on what you are trying to share. If the P? Is strictly a relay for low latency communication that is quite easy. If the P? Needs to change this and feed information to CF-35s and a CSC plus Ottawa RPAS and even North Bay, the compute power becomes an issue (That is buy definition of 5th and 6th generation warfare) Shitloads of information  Shipping only interdiction is the most obvious role obvious role but not the most difficult to build.


What you're talking about sounds more like a C2 or AWACS platform than what the CMMA is intended to do.


----------



## MTShaw (25 Nov 2022)

dimsum said:


> What you're talking about sounds more like a C2 or AWACS platform than what the CMMA is intended to do.


You may very well be correct. It depends on how imaginative the government and if we can afford both.


----------



## dimsum (25 Nov 2022)

MTShaw said:


> You may very well be correct. It depends on how imaginative the government and if we can afford both.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2022)

armrdsoul77 said:


> Maybe chase storms on the weekend....
> View attachment 75139View attachment 75140



Doubtful; the NOAA P-3s are kitted out and maintained at levels the RCAF wouldn’t consider.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2022)

MTShaw said:


> The amount of computing that will take to synthesize all the information and share it with other nodes in the network would be much higher than purely AWS plane. Like a supercomputer flying around with you.



I don’t think you understand a DMS (data management system), IMS (integrated mission system) on an aircraft or a TDES (Tactical data exchange system aka Link) that well.  This is what happens on modern aircraft now. 



MTShaw said:


> A jet engine can only provide so much power. I don’t know exactly how big the generators/alternators are on a CFM56 For the 737. I don’t know if  CFM/Boeing upgraded the power available.
> 
> The 787/A350 have engines large enough to swallow a 737 and have two alternators per engine as opposed the standard (an assumed on my part) one per engine for the 737. That is a concern.



Yet the P-8 has been successfully conducting missions for years.   I’m confused on what the concern is here.  “What is working now might not work even though it already is”.



MTShaw said:


> Finally range. A business jet A350 can fly 20000 km (i do recognize two crews) where as a Business 737 can fly ~12000km. So that might be important given loiterning over the arctic from FOL Yellowknife still is a stretch at 20000km.



Aurora range; 7400km.   Aurora can’t do air to air refueling.  P-8 can and is.  






						CP-140 Aurora fact sheet - Royal Canadian Air Force - Canada.ca
					

Description of the CP-140 Aurora fact sheet.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## Lumber (26 Nov 2022)

MTShaw said:


> It’s a proven platform only if it works for us. The P-8 is only an ASW plane and not what is said above. So it would be holy sh!t modified MOTS. and in the end no longer what the other allies run.


Um, what? The P8 is highly capable of conducting ASuW as well. She has a highly capable surface search radar, ESM suite (#what'satrout?), and can carry numerous Harpoons. In fact, you could argue she's a better ASuW platform than ASW platform (compared to the P3) .


----------



## GR66 (26 Nov 2022)

Replacing our Aurora's one-for-one with P-8's (plus MQ-9Bs from the JUSTAS program) would be one of the easiest and most effective ways to signal to the USA that we are taking defence more seriously.  Combined with NORAD upgrades and the CSCs they would both increase continental security and provide robust ASW capability to supplement US forces.  18 x P-8's would make us the 2nd largest operator of the platform worldwide.

As I mentioned earlier I think the only _semi_-realistic alternative would be if Airbus offered an A330-based MPA as it would then share an airframe with the A330 MRTT's we're already buying.  But that's a gigantic IF as they haven't even proposed such a platform and we would be the launch customer for that aircraft (and potentially the ONLY operator as most major potential customers have already jumped on the P-8 bandwagon) with all the serious potential issues that go along with that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2022)

MTShaw said:


> You may very well be correct. It depends on how imaginative the government and if we can afford both.



The LRP fleet does not do any kind of Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) mission.  The P-8A does not do AEW&C;  that is done by aircraft such as the Hawkeyes, Sentry’s and Wedgetails.  

Canada does not have AEW&C aircraft.  There is no project to procure AEW&C aircraft.  The RCAF participates (personnel) in the NATO AEW&C fleets with a very small footprint.  

CMMA has nothing to do with AEW&C.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2022)

100 pers/sortie.  Seems like an improvement to me over our current capability.



			https://www.navair.navy.mil/news/P-8A-gets-new-tool-extended-search-and-rescue-capability/Tue-10082019-1117


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2022)

Lumber said:


> Um, what? The P8 is highly capable of conducting ASuW as well. She has a highly capable surface search radar, ESM suite (#what'satrout?), and can carry numerous Harpoons. In fact, you could argue she's a better ASuW platform than ASW platform (compared to the P3) .



The USN has declared IOC on HAAWC now, and with Mk 54s.









						U.S. Navy Declares IOC for Boeing’s HAAWC - Naval News
					

Boeing's High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon Capability, or HAAWC, has achieved initial operational capability status from the U.S. Navy.




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## MTShaw (26 Nov 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I don’t think you understand a DMS (data management system), IMS (integrated mission system) on an aircraft or a TDES (Tactical data exchange system aka Link) that well.  This is what happens on modern aircraft now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We should get the P8 if it suits us. My point  is if we need more (5th generation battlespace management) we will need more than what Boeing offers. Or desn’t necessary fit in a current an/. 

I was just speculating on potential P8s weaknesses. That’s alL. 

Or if we tried to fit to much new stuff into a 737 we might have a C295


----------



## MTShaw (26 Nov 2022)

Lumber said:


> Um, what? The P8 is highly capable of conducting ASuW as well. She has a highly capable surface search radar, ESM suite (#what'satrout?), and can carry numerous Harpoons. In fact, you could argue she's a better ASuW platform than ASW platform (compared to the P3) .


Stroke aphasia problems: I left out ASuW accidentally. I was disappointed when they dropped Harpoon from the CP140. I guess they didn’t think that our warplanes should be offensive.


----------



## MTShaw (26 Nov 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> The LRP fleet does not do any kind of Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) mission.  The P-8A does not do AEW&C;  that is done by aircraft such as the Hawkeyes, Sentry’s and Wedgetails.
> 
> Canada does not have AEW&C aircraft.  There is no project to procure AEW&C aircraft.  The RCAF participates (personnel) in the NATO AEW&C fleets with a very small footprint.
> 
> CMMA has nothing to do with AEW&C.


Your correct. I didn’t say that. I was replying to the guy up thread. 

I get that everyone wants Canada to get the P8. I was just pointing out limitations in putting all of the Capabilities in a 737ng or a A320neo.


----------



## Dana381 (26 Nov 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Aurora range; 7400km.   Aurora can’t do air to air refueling.  P-8 can and is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is Wikipedia correct with a 2222km range for the P8? If so that is exactly 1/3 the range of the Aurora.
How do we use the Aurora now? Will the much lesser range over tax our small refueler fleet?


----------



## dapaterson (26 Nov 2022)

Per Wikipedia. the P8 is 2,222km with 4 hours on station; the P3 is 2,491km with 3 hours on station.


----------



## Dana381 (26 Nov 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Per Wikipedia. the P8 is 2,222km with 4 hours on station; the P3 is 2,491km with 3 hours on station.



Ok, that makes more sense. I thought the range for th P8 seemed really low. Thanks for clearing that up


----------



## dapaterson (26 Nov 2022)

There are multiple range figures for the a/c, depending on what the employment is.


----------



## kev994 (26 Nov 2022)

GR66 said:


> As I mentioned earlier I think the only _semi_-realistic alternative would be if Airbus offered an A330-based MPA as it would then share an airframe with the A330 MRTT's we're already buying.  But that's a gigantic IF as they haven't even proposed such a platform and we would be the launch customer for that aircraft (and potentially the ONLY operator as most major potential customers have already jumped on the P-8 bandwagon) with all the serious potential issues that go along with that.


A330 is enormous, this is not realistic at all, we don’t have anywhere to put a bunch more A330s. Here’s a picture


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2022)

MTShaw said:


> We should get the P8 if it suits us. My point  is if we need more (5th generation battlespace management) we will need more than what Boeing offers. Or desn’t necessary fit in a current an/.
> 
> I was just speculating on potential P8s weaknesses. That’s alL.
> 
> Or if we tried to fit to much new stuff into a 737 we might have a C295



Everything we have in an Aurora will fit in/on a P-8, including a MAD system.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2022)

MTShaw said:


> Stroke aphasia problems: I left out ASuW accidentally. I was disappointed when they dropped Harpoon from the CP140. I guess they didn’t think that our warplanes should be offensive.



$$$$ is a major factor.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Nov 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Everything we have in an Aurora will fit in/on a P-8, including a MAD system.


Aeropress?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> A330 is enormous, this is not realistic at all, we don’t have anywhere to put a bunch more A330s. Here’s a picture


 I could bring home like… 9000 duvets from Scotland and sell them at a profit!


----------



## MTShaw (26 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> A330 is enormous, this is not realistic at all, we don’t have anywhere to put a bunch more A330s. Here’s a picture


Or to give even another perspective:



Won’t Equipment vs Infra use separate accounts to house these monsters.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Aeropress?



Everything on the Aurora PLUS Aeropress which has to be better than the awful FF “coffee” I suffer with.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Nov 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Everything on the Aurora PLUS Aeropress which has to be better than the awful FF “coffee” I suffer with.



Hopefully FaCT will improve the ACSO training in that regard.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2022)

I’ll be CRA before FAcT is rolling…or the Aurora replacement is on a RCAF Wing.   😂


----------



## dimsum (26 Nov 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Hopefully FaCT will improve the ACSO training in that regard.


Good luck.  More of an Acoustics specialty.  They have time to practice.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Nov 2022)

Well sure, the three months ACSOs spend on "wheeled suitcase selection" doesn't leave much time for other stuff.


----------



## dimsum (26 Nov 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Well sure, the three months ACSOs spend on "wheeled suitcase selection" doesn't leave much time for other stuff.


Top tip - get the 4-caster ones that roll in all directions


----------



## Spencer100 (27 Nov 2022)

Important people and families are mad Boeing so there will be no P-8.  Full stop.


----------



## Good2Golf (27 Nov 2022)

MTShaw said:


> I get that everyone wants Canada to get the P8. I was just pointing out limitations in putting all of the Capabilities in a 737ng or a A320neo.



Don’t mistake “will get the P8” for “wants to get the P8.”



Spencer100 said:


> Important people and families are mad Boeing so there will be no P-8.  Full stop.



Can we quote you on that?  Which ‘important people and families’ would be capable of refusing US direction, camouflaged as ‘continental defense concern’, to buy the P8?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Nov 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Don’t mistake “will get the P8” for “wants to get the P8.”



I’ll add, not everyone is the LRP world or RCAF wants “to get P-8” although it’s the east, visible replacement.  

I think I can say, in the fleet, a huge majority want and see a new for a replacement, and we’ll before the GoC does anything about it.  I’ll say 99.99% want a replacement because there might be that 0.01% that don’t (aside from the Flt Engr trade).

Sadly I think our place as a respected member of the “VP community” globally will dwindle further and further.  You can’t operate the way we are right now and into the next decade and still reasonably believe you’ll be viewed the same as, the RAAF is by Allies, for example.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Nov 2022)

dimsum said:


> Top tip - get the 4-caster ones that roll in all directions



That might be the first Prof Level 5 I’ve ever seen right there!!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Nov 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I’ll add, not everyone is the LRP world or RCAF wants “to get P-8” although it’s the easy, visible replacement.
> 
> I think I can say, in the fleet, a huge majority want and see a need for a replacement, and well before the GoC does anything about it.  I’ll say 99.99% want a replacement because there might be that 0.01% that don’t (aside from the Flt Engr trade).
> 
> Sadly I think our place as a respected member of the “VP community” globally will dwindle further and further.  You can’t operate the way we are right now and into the next decade and still reasonably believe you’ll be viewed the same as, the RAAF is by Allies, for example.



Edited after my second coffee for Islander English errors due to iPhone autocorrect.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Dec 2022)

Another soon-to-be US FragO to Canada…

Uncle Sam: “Get ‘er done, poutine-eaters!”


----------



## CBH99 (16 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I’ll add, not everyone is the LRP world or RCAF wants “to get P-8” although it’s the east, visible replacement.
> 
> I think I can say, in the fleet, a huge majority want and see a new for a replacement, and we’ll before the GoC does anything about it.  I’ll say 99.99% want a replacement because there might be that 0.01% that don’t (aside from the Flt Engr trade).
> 
> Sadly I think our place as a respected member of the “VP community” globally will dwindle further and further.  You can’t operate the way we are right now and into the next decade and still reasonably believe you’ll be viewed the same as, the RAAF is by Allies, for example.


From the viewpoint of someone that actually works & operates inside the LRP community, what other realistic  options are out there besides the P8?

Our allies increasingly use it, so spare parts/training/maintenance in theatre/crew familiarity, etc - it seems like the easiest decision.


Are there any other realistic options out there?  What are your thoughts/preferences on a replacement?  (If any)

(I feel like someone should ask you guys.  I mean, apparently nobody asked the SAR techs what their thoughts were... 😅)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Dec 2022)

Realistic options.   I’d love to include the P-1 but I don’t think that fall into the realistic side.

The P-8 seems be the only realistic platform that is currently operating and proven.  Ours should have the MAD system on it.  

8 to 12 are NOT ENOUGH.   14 Auroras are not enough.  

The realistic option must also provide enough airframes for the maintenance cycle, FG, FE and FD requirements.  12 - nope.  If 14 isn’t enough 12 will short.


----------



## KevinB (16 Dec 2022)

8+12…


----------



## dimsum (16 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> The P-8 seems be the only realistic platform that is currently operating and proven. Ours should have the MAD system on it.


My spidey-sense is tingling, wondering why of all the countries using it, only the Indians ordered the one with MAD.

Not the Americans, Brits, Aussies, Kiwis, Norgies, etc.


----------



## GR66 (16 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> 8 to 12 are NOT ENOUGH.   14 Auroras are not enough.


This to me signifies the absolute stupidity of the GOC in terms of Defence policy and the weakness of our military leadership.

We're surrounded by water on three sides and have the World's longest coastline so we're looking at a fleet of *8 to 12* MPA's???  And we plan to use these for deployed ops as well???  

FFS Air Canada has a fleet of 667 aircraft.  

This line item is probably one of the easiest sells in the Defence budget.  Being able to see what's going on in our maritime domain is absolutely fundamental to maintaining our sovereignty and without that basic capability we simply cannot fulfill the primary task of the military which is the Defence of Canada.

The fact that nobody is screaming HELL NO from the rooftops about this literally makes me weep for the state of this country.  

[/rant]


----------



## dimsum (16 Dec 2022)

GR66 said:


> This to me signifies the absolute stupidity of the GOC in terms of Defence policy and the weakness of our military leadership.
> 
> We're surrounded by water on three sides and have the World's longest coastline so we're looking at a fleet of *8 to 12* MPA's???  And we plan to use these for deployed ops as well???
> 
> ...


Personally, unless someone in the RCAF is publicly stating that we're getting 8-12 aircraft (which, AFAIK, no one did), I'd take those numbers with KFC-levels of salt.


----------



## KevinB (16 Dec 2022)

I suspect 18 is the minimum number that will be acceptable.  20-24 would be a better number though.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> I suspect 18 is the minimum number that will be acceptable.  20-24 would be a better number though.



I suspect the RCAF has blinders for anything isn't fast air and inappropriate call signs.


----------



## KevinB (16 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I suspect the RCAF has blinders for anything isn't fast air and inappropriate call signs.


I’m of the opinion that the RCAF is getting a directed requirement from higher….


----------



## dimsum (16 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I suspect the RCAF has blinders for anything isn't fast air and inappropriate call signs.


I'm not so sure about that.  DComd (MGen Keiver) is a Herc guy.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Dec 2022)

I should have put in a lol emoji...

Lighten up, its a coffee and JD Shore Rum Cream morning.  🎄🤶🎅


----------



## Weinie (16 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> Personally, unless someone in the RCAF is publicly stating that we're getting 8-12 aircraft (which, AFAIK, no one did), I'd take those numbers with KFC-levels of salt.


Ummmmmmmmm.........KFC.


----------



## dimsum (16 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I should have put in a lol emoji...
> 
> Lighten up, its a coffee and JD Shore Rum Cream morning.  🎄🤶🎅


Fair, but there are a non-zero number of people that actually believe what you were joking about.


----------



## GR66 (16 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> Personally, unless someone in the RCAF is publicly stating that we're getting 8-12 aircraft (which, AFAIK, no one did), I'd take those numbers with KFC-levels of salt.


I applaud your optimism.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Dec 2022)

GR66 said:


> We're surrounded by water on three sides and have the World's longest coastline so we're looking at a fleet of *8 to 12* MPA's??? And we plan to use these for deployed ops as well???


Not MPA…ASW.  MPAs will likely be a second fleet built in Canada that does a lot of things but not chucking Mk.54 torpedos into the deep blue hunting down SSKs/SSGNs/…

I wouldn’t be surprised to see 10 P-8s and 12 deHavilland P-4s.


----------



## Spencer100 (16 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Not MPA…ASW.  MPAs will likely be a second fleet built in Canada that does a lot of things but not chucking Mk.54 torpedos into the deep blue hunting down SSKs/SSGNs/…
> 
> I wouldn’t be surprised to see 10 P-8s and 12 deHavilland P-4s.


FIFY


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Dec 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> FIFY


If Uncle Sam didn’t care what we did on our own, I’m sure you’d be right.  He cares to the extent that we say we are concerned about the security of the continental approaches, so I’m pretty sure the P-8s as a collective responsibility are going to happen and if we want to do our own industry support thing with MPA/LRP/non-ASW, he probably doesn’t care.


----------



## YZT580 (16 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> If Uncle Sam didn’t care what we did on our own, I’m sure you’d be right.  He cares to the extent that we say we are concerned about the security of the continental approaches, so I’m pretty sure the P-8s as a collective responsibility are going to happen and if we want to do our own industry support thing with MPA/LRP/non-ASW, he probably doesn’t care.


the dehavilland actually makes a bit of sense except that it sets up yet another fleet for spares, training, maintenance etc. and we seem to have a shortage of people as it is.  But even with hiving off the MPA tasks from the P8 we should still have more than 12 ASW a/c.  That is only 4 per ocean.  No adversary is going to make it easy by visiting one coast at a time


----------



## kev994 (16 Dec 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Are there any other realistic options out there?  What are your thoughts/preferences on a replacement?  (If any)
> 
> (I feel like someone should ask you guys.  I mean, apparently nobody asked the SAR techs what their thoughts were... 😅)


The real question is: are there any options that can be made in a special riding? DNDs requirements are the least of our concerns. 









						Swordfish Multi-Role Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA)
					

Swedish company Saab introduced the Swordfish long-range, multi-role maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) mission system in February 2016.




					www.naval-technology.com


----------



## Dana381 (16 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> I’m of the opinion that the RCAF is getting a directed requirement from higher….



Or do you mean lower, as in Washington?


----------



## KevinB (16 Dec 2022)

Dana381 said:


> Or do you mean lower, as in Washington?


The Higher Authority may be lower geographically


----------



## Spencer100 (16 Dec 2022)

YZT580 said:


> the dehavilland actually makes a bit of sense except that it sets up yet another fleet for spares, training, maintenance etc. and we seem to have a shortage of people as it is.  But even with hiving off the MPA tasks from the P8 we should still have more than 12 ASW a/c.  That is only 4 per ocean.  No adversary is going to make it easy by visiting one coast at a time


They are making not new builds of the Dash 8.  They may in the future but it won't be in the correct province. 

I think you would see Globals with a L3 Wescam and a radar before anything else.   

Or they outsource the job to Provincial Airlines.  Lol


----------



## Zoomie (17 Dec 2022)

Or we use the Kingfisher…


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Dec 2022)

TC flies patrols for CCG/DFO. If the RCAF get the P-8, the government could throw Canadian Aerospace industry a bone by updating that fleet, and expanding it so they can handle more of the domestic tasks. Which would allow more offshore use of the P8's. Also replace and increase the numbers of Twin Otters. That should round out to 8 new almost all Canadian content airframes which actually compliment the RCAF mission rather than drag it down. Throw in some new gray TC owned helicopters for AOP's Arctic op support and the Aerospace lobby will be more or less happy.


----------



## CBH99 (17 Dec 2022)

Zoomie said:


> Or we use the Kingfisher…


Would it be any good as a MPA?

I know a lot of folks weren’t too happy with it being selected for FWSAR…does it have any potential for ASW?


----------



## dimsum (17 Dec 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Would it be any good as a MPA?
> 
> I know a lot of folks weren’t too happy with it being selected for FWSAR…does it have any potential for ASW?


Some countries use a version of it for MPA and ASW.  I’m not convinced it’d be good to hunt subs but as an eye in the sky (heh)?  

Maybe.


----------



## GR66 (17 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Realistic options.   I’d love to include the P-1 but I don’t think that fall into the realistic side.


What do you think the major issues are with the P-1?  Cost?  Lack of technical support among our allies?  Political issues on our side?  Political issues on the Japanese side?  It certainly looks like an excellent platform.  Any experiences working with them?



Good2Golf said:


> Not MPA…ASW.  MPAs will likely be a second fleet built in Canada that does a lot of things but not chucking Mk.54 torpedos into the deep blue hunting down SSKs/SSGNs/…


Not to be picky, but even Boeing on its website calls it the "P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft"


----------



## dimsum (17 Dec 2022)

GR66 said:


> What do you think the major issues are with the P-1?  Cost?  Lack of technical support among our allies?  Political issues on our side?  Political issues on the Japanese side?  It certainly looks like an excellent platform.  Any experiences working with them?


The big red flag would be that the Japanese have not been able to sell military equipment since WWII.  Their entire setup is geared towards supplying their own forces, and we would be the first (only?) international customer for something that only Japan uses.

Imagine trying to get spares, re-negotiating contracts with a company (yes they make commercial stuff too but that assumes the commercial and military sides work the same way or even talk to each other), making sure things are NATO standard (which they are not a part of)...

Contrast that with a 737-800 platform, which has spares around the world.  If you can pull up to an international airport, likely you can get a tire or engine blade or random Bolt X.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Dec 2022)

GR66 said:


> Not to be picky, but even Boeing on its website calls it the "P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft"


Marketing to bite down into other markets.

The heart of the issue is can you prosecute an adversary’s sub or not.  Dropping sternly worded letters or inclusive convening orders only goes so far…


----------



## CBH99 (17 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Marketing to bite down into other markets.
> 
> The heart of the issue is can you prosecute an adversary’s sub or not.  Dropping sternly worded letters or inclusive convening orders only goes so far…


I mean, true.  Facts be facts.

I'm sure if the Army rolled a tank up to a target that couldn't actually shoot its main gun, then continued to demand on a loud speaker "Stop what you're doing, or we will stay here until someone else shows up to shoot!"

The bad guys might just eventually keep doing what they were doing...


----------



## YZT580 (17 Dec 2022)

CBH99 said:


> I mean, true.  Facts be facts.
> 
> I'm sure if the Army rolled a tank up to a target that couldn't actually shoot its main gun, then continued to demand on a loud speaker "Stop what you're doing, or we will stay here until someone else shows up to shoot!"
> 
> The bad guys might just eventually keep doing what they were doing...


We have become the Barney Fife of NATO with our single bullet in our breast pocket.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> My spidey-sense is tingling, wondering why of all the countries using it, only the Indians ordered the one with MAD.
> 
> Not the Americans, Brits, Aussies, Kiwis, Norgies, etc.



Not sure;  but I don’t see the GoC coughing up the cost that will come with HAAWC.   The only other way to achieve an effective wpn splash point is to be low.  If you’re going to be low, have MAD - it could be your attack sensor.  I’ve seen it pay for itself on Ex and Op, diesel and nuc’s.

Eg - I’ve seen a MAD barrier used while the acoustic system was undergoing IFTS to screen the force from a fairly capable SSK.  It’s still a useful and accurate tool in the belt.  

Invest in HAAWC, the MAD capability should look more like this to enable the “HA” part of HAAWC.  



			StackPath
		


I do not see the GoC providing funds for HAAWC.   So we need to maintain our current toolset.   I am not sure on RAAF, RAF etc status on employing HAAWC.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> Personally, unless someone in the RCAF is publicly stating that we're getting 8-12 aircraft (which, AFAIK, no one did), I'd take those numbers with KFC-levels of salt.



There may be an article published in an unnamed newspaper dated on or about 14 Dec that points to a level slightly higher than the RCAF as the info source and specifically mentions 8 to 12 aircraft.  

This information may or may not have been discussed at the last morning prayers before Christmas Leave.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Not MPA…ASW.  MPAs will likely be a second fleet built in Canada that does a lot of things but not chucking Mk.54 torpedos into the deep blue hunting down SSKs/SSGNs/…
> 
> I wouldn’t be surprised to see 10 P-8s and 12 deHavilland P-4s.



Personally, I break them out as:

MPA - can carry kill stores for surface/sub surface targets.

MSA (surveillance).  No sub surface attack capability.   



			Medium Range Surveillance Aircraft


----------



## Zoomie (18 Dec 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Would it be any good as a MPA?
> 
> I know a lot of folks weren’t too happy with it being selected for FWSAR…does it have any potential for ASW?


That’s literally what it does.

Numerous inferences in this thread about PAL and TC Dash-8s doing  maritime surveillance tasks for the GoC - they are doing that on a civilian airliner adopted for that use.  The 295 is purpose built for this task.   

I suspect that we will be using these aircraft in littoral MPA roles within the decade.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Dec 2022)

YZT580 said:


> the dehavilland actually makes a bit of sense except that it sets up yet another fleet for spares, training, maintenance etc. and we seem to have a shortage of people as it is.  But even with hiving off the MPA tasks from the P8 we should still have more than 12 ASW a/c.  That is only 4 per ocean.  No adversary is going to make it easy by visiting one coast at a time



There is no “hiving off” MPA tasks.   ASW is only one mission set the CMMA will perform, just like it is now with the Aurora.

12 aircraft doesn’t equal 4 per ocean.  Some will be in 2nd and 3rd line maint. Some will be doing FG.  1 or more (likely 1) would be dedicated to FD.   

Thankfully, for us, maritime approaches are part of NORADs mission.   Anyone who wants to think about that for a few minutes can see some of the reasons that is important, was wanted and results of that addition to the NORAD mission.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Dec 2022)

Zoomie said:


> Or we use the Kingfisher…



Already paid for, might as well put them to use.  We don’t need a min-10 person crew and a P-3/P-8 to take a few folks from DFO up to Halls Beach and Pond Inlet in October to do their airborne research and observations.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Dec 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Would it be any good as a MPA?
> 
> I know a lot of folks weren’t too happy with it being selected for FWSAR…does it have any potential for ASW?



Not ASW.  But that is only one task a good MPA does. 

If we maintain a single aircraft type to replace the Aurora, it is not the right aircraft.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> Some countries use a version of it for MPA and ASW.  I’m not convinced it’d be good to hunt subs but as an eye in the sky (heh)?
> 
> Maybe.



100%.  Not every MPA task requires a belly and bombbay load.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Marketing to bite down into other markets.
> 
> The heart of the issue is can you prosecute an adversary’s sub or not.  Dropping sternly worded letters or inclusive convening orders only goes so far…



I’d love to be able to add “or be the shooter in ASuW…” into that equation.   Not holding my breathe, I don’t even think we will go HAAWC with the replacement due to cost.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Personally, I break them out as:
> 
> MPA - can carry kill stores for surface/sub surface targets.
> 
> ...



Your word is good for me, EITS.  👍🏼  Do you know if Airbus has cracked the code on environmental control for torpedoes?



Eye In The Sky said:


> I’d love to be able to add “or be the shooter in ASuW…” into that equation.   Not holding my breathe, I don’t even think we will go HAAWC with the replacement due to cost.



Not sure if your community still has dinosaurs, EITS…I had a 140 TACCO laugh at me for writing a “Why the CP-140 should have SLAM-ER.” paper on ASC. (I also discussed/recommended Harpoon as well).  I learned a lot from writing that paper…both technically 👍🏼 AND institutionally 😔.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Dec 2022)

A few points:

With the Aurora fleet, we had 3 x CP140As at one point.   The Arcturus.   It was an Aurora minus the ASW systems and a better SS radar.  Those aircraft maxed out their hours and are laid up or monuments now.  But they were used heavily in SURPATs (surface patrols, part of the MPA tasks).   

Nomenclature:  MPA, LRPA,CMMA.  MPA means different things to different people.

ASW is just one of many missions our LRP Sqns do.  We have and continue to confuse ourselves and our identity with our own names swaps.  VP was too American, MP was not broad enough so we adopted LRP.  Our own identity crisis leads to confusion on what is the difference between a MPA and a MSA, MMA etc.  in this thread we become bogged down some on “the name”; perhaps made worse because the project itself isn’t MPAA or LRPA replacement.   People in the fleet have asked “are we changing to 4XX Multi Mission Sqn?”

To me, a MPA includes the ability to attack maritime surface and sub- surface hostiles.  That is where/how I delineate.  

 But using those expensive to buy, expensive to operate and expensive to crew aircraft for ALL the needed tasks isn’t necessary;   We still do SURPATs and the ASOs are usually pretty bored, for example.  The same tasks can be done as effectively and more cost efficient with a smaller aircraft and crew.  

MSAs don’t have to be limited to maritime only or DomOps only.   Overland, SAR, ISTAR…all possible.  

Just to cage brains again, here is what Canada is looking for from the CMMA:

Entitled Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft (CMMA), this replacement aircraft will be required by the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) to provide the following minimum operational capabilities, which are defined in Annex A:
 Search and Rescue (SAR);
 Command, Control, Communications, Computers (C4), Intelligence, Surveillance
and Reconnaissance (ISR) (C4ISR);
 Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW);
 Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW);
 Communications Relay;
 Network Extension; and
 Overland Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance
(ISTAR).


			https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2022/02/10/40e474721d25ec41e82e2941aa3754f5/canadian_multi-mission_aircraft_project_request_for_information_02.10.2022.pdf


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Your word is good for me, EITS.  👍🏼  Do you know if Airbus has cracked the code on environmental control for torpedoes?



No, but I’m “heads down” into things other than torps day to day.



Good2Golf said:


> Not sure if your community still has dinosaurs, EITS…I had a 140 TACCO laugh at me for writing a “Why the CP-140 should have SLAM-ER.” paper on ASC. (I also discussed/recommended Harpoon as well).  I learned a lot from writing that paper…both technically 👍🏼 AND institutionally 😔.



I’d like to think after OUP and IMPACT none of those people exist…

Myopic thinkers almost saw the fleet dissolved.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Dec 2022)

Hopefully not listed in order of priority, otherwise the EO/IR system may not survive the requirements vetting… 😉


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> No, but I’m “heads down” into things other than torps day to day.


Ack, but you need to be prepped to use them one day…and the Nation needs to make them available to you to properly do the complete job.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Hopefully not listed in order of priority, otherwise the EO/IR system may not survive the requirements vetting… 😉



2 things I am confident in:   

1 - I will be CRA before the Aurora flies her final operational mission (my CRA is Oct 2030).

2 - when we get the CMMA we will put significant effort into making things that currently work for other Air Forces NOT work for us.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Ack, but you need to be prepped to use them one day…and the Nation needs to make them available to you to properly do the complete job.



My last ARMPAT was in the last quarter.   We are maintaining with current systems.  

Wonder where we are converting our current torps to 54s.  Must be complete or near complete!  😆


----------



## dimsum (18 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Not sure if your community still has dinosaurs, EITS…I had a 140 TACCO laugh at me for writing a “Why the CP-140 should have SLAM-ER.” paper on ASC. (I also discussed/recommended Harpoon as well). I learned a lot from writing that paper…both technically 👍🏼 AND institutionally 😔.


I'm pretty confident those folks are out of uniform now.

I also suspect (probably wrong) that their laughter was because the Aurora is such an old platform that integration, etc costs would have been better used somewhere else. 

But, in case people don't know what HAAWC and SLAM-ER are:









						Navy P-8 Poseidon Can Now Drop Winged Torpedoes In Combat (Updated)
					

New wing kits allow P-8A crews to lob Mk 54 torpedoes at enemy submarines at standoff ranges while flying at higher altitudes.




					www.thedrive.com
				












						AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## suffolkowner (18 Dec 2022)

Is there some metric available that can provide what numbers of aircraft are required and what that is based on? Like what we have for the fighter jets?


----------



## dimsum (18 Dec 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> Is there some metric available that can provide what numbers of aircraft are required and what that is based on? Like what we have for the fighter jets?


I would be shocked if there wasn't.

Is it public?  Probably not.


----------



## suffolkowner (18 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> I would be shocked if there wasn't.
> 
> Is it public?  Probably not.


I mean those analysis should exist for every platform but do they and are they followed? Or do they get chipped away by political/financial constraints?


----------



## dapaterson (18 Dec 2022)

How many lines of tasking at what intensity and what concurrency, plus FG, plus FD, plus light maintenance cycles, plus heavy maintenance cycles, plus anticipated losses.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Dec 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> they get chipped away by political/financial constraints.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Dec 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> Is there some metric available that can provide what numbers of aircraft are required and what that is based on? Like what we have for the fighter jets?



I’ll give you my #s.

Line x 2 Sqns, 5 each, total 10

Trg Sqn, 2

FD Sqn, 2

14 total that are serviceable or at 1st line (temp U/S)

6 in the maint/mod cycles 2nd line +.

20 total

The “they are more capable so we need less”
argument is just not true.  Anyone who claims it doesn’t understand the fleet IMO.


----------



## KevinB (18 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I’ll give you my #s.
> 
> Line x 2 Sqns, 5 each, total 10
> 
> ...


I spitballed 34, to have 16 operational 24/7 for my napkin Army. 

Looking at Canada’s geography, and potential support to operations outside of Canada, I think 20 is still way too few.  

That said I suspect 20 is the number we would accept down here as a minimum RCAF acquisition.  Anything less proves Canada isn’t even serious about its own territory let alone external operations


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> I spitballed 34, to have 16 operational 24/7 for my napkin Army.
> 
> Looking at Canada’s geography, and potential support to operations outside of Canada, I think 20 is still way too few.
> 
> That said I suspect 20 is the number we would accept down here as a minimum RCAF acquisition.  Anything less proves Canada isn’t even serious about its own territory let alone external operations


So like a single P-8 VP Sqn then?


----------



## SupersonicMax (18 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I’ll give you my #s.
> 
> Line x 2 Sqns, 5 each, total 10
> 
> ...


The number shouldn’t be based on how many Squadrons we have/want but on the number of aircraft we need to accomplish our mandate.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Dec 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> The number shouldn’t be based on how many Squadrons we have/want but on the number of aircraft we need to accomplish our mandate.



Great. What is our mandate?   I’ve been in the fleet for a while and I’ve never heard it.  “Go places, find stuff”?  The problem I have with mandates is ours change with elections.

We have historically had the pretty same FG, Fzg and FD org.  Let’s at least give those Sqns the plans they needed yesterday and will need tomorrow.   My numbers aren’t perfect but they are certainly are better than “8-12”.


----------



## CBH99 (18 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I’ll give you my #s.
> 
> Line x 2 Sqns, 5 each, total 10
> 
> ...


Random question - but how arduous would it be to convert a civilian 737 to a P8 standard?


----------



## dapaterson (18 Dec 2022)

If there's no production line open - insanely expensive.

For the A330 MRTT, for example, Airbus converts new or used A330-200 aircraft to the MRTT standard.


----------



## CBH99 (18 Dec 2022)

dapaterson said:


> If there's no production line open - insanely expensive.
> 
> For the A330 MRTT, for example, Airbus converts new or used A330-200 aircraft to the MRTT standard.


That is actually what sparked my question. 

I was thinking if Airbus can convert A330-200 aircraft to MRTT standard, can Boeing not do the same for 737 aircraft to P8 standard?

If so, we could buy ‘8-12’ aircraft if the winds are in favour of it - and either buy a few 737’s here & there to be converted/grow the fleet, or keep the most recently upgraded planes around for a bit to help supplement the P8.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Dec 2022)

The production line would have to remain open.

But I'm not certain whether Boeing is taking the same approach - building "normal" 737-800s, then converting, or if the differences between the default 800 and the P-8 (generators, wingtips etc) are sufficient that they build the P-8s different from the ground up.

Either way, Boeing has strongly signalled that once current orders are complete, they are closing the P-8 line.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Dec 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Random question - but how arduous would it be to convert a civilian 737 to a P8 standard?



I have no idea but after seeing challenges upgrading a P-3 fleet in Blocks I would want not much to do with it.   A lot of PITAs.


----------



## Zoomie (19 Dec 2022)

No room for 5x737NG at QQ.   Maybe they go and hide out with the A330 fleet?


----------



## dimsum (19 Dec 2022)

Zoomie said:


> No room for 5x737NG at QQ.   Maybe they go and hide out with the A330 fleet?


Next CAF headline:  

407 Sqn moves to Vancouver International Airport   

And yes, there is (somewhat) precedent:






						RCAF Station Sea Island
					

RCAF Station Sea Island was established beside the Vancouver Airport on July 22, 1940 under the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan.



					seaislandhome.org


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Dec 2022)

Zoomie said:


> No room for 5x737NG at QQ.   Maybe they go and hide out with the A330 fleet?



They had to build 8 Hgr at RCAF Station Summerside to hold the Argus.  They could do something like that again.  They just need the will; it’s clear with the amount of money thrown around the last several years Canada has the money… building new hangers is exactly what the RAF did at Lossie.









						This Is Our New Strategic Facility | Did you know that it took £100m and one million manhours to build our new Strategic Facility?   Designed and built by Boeing and local construction... | By RAF Lossiemouth | Facebook
					

38K views, 929 likes, 38 loves, 80 comments, 171 shares, Facebook Watch Videos from RAF Lossiemouth: Did you know that it took £100m and one million manhours to build our new Strategic Facility?...




					fb.watch


----------



## dimsum (19 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> They had to build 8 Hgr at RCAF Station Summerside to hold the Argus.  They could do something like that again.  They just need the will; it’s clear with the amount of money thrown around the last several years Canada has the money… building new hangers is exactly what the RAF did at Lossie.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think @Zoomie is suggesting that YQQ doesn’t have the space to fit hangars in.  It’s a bit constricted there.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> I think @Zoomie is suggesting that YQQ doesn’t have the space to fit hangars in.  It’s a bit constricted there.



Not if current Hgrs are consolidated into a single super hanger; the current 14 Wing Comd is rumoured to have this vision for ZX and I’d love to see it happen.  Anything like this of course would be incredibly expensive; can 7 Hgr even handle a P-8?

I also believe it will happen the day after I become CDS…😁


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> I spitballed 34, to have 16 operational 24/7 for my napkin Army.
> 
> Looking at Canada’s geography, and potential support to operations outside of Canada, I think 20 is still way too few.
> 
> That said I suspect 20 is the number we would accept down here as a minimum RCAF acquisition.  Anything less proves Canada isn’t even serious about its own territory let alone external operations


 
I was in Kadena a few years back, and chatting with a guy from the incoming VP replacing the one rotating out.   We were talking P-3 vice P-8 and I was asking lots of questions on serviceability rates etc as their P-8 fleet matures.

At one point I mentioned we had “14 Auroras”.  He said “where?” to which I replied “total, that is how many we have in our Air Force”.

He paused for a second, took a drag off his smoke, looked at me and said

“Why bother?”


----------



## dimsum (19 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I was in Kadena a few years back, and chatting with a guy from the incoming VP replacing the one rotating out.   We were talking P-3 vice P-8 and I was asking lots of questions on serviceability rates etc as their P-8 fleet matures.
> 
> At one point I mentioned we had “14 Auroras”.  He said “where?” to which I replied “total, that is how many we have in our Air Force”.
> 
> ...


To be fair, he would say the same to any other operator of those aircraft.

It’s not like Australia or the UK is getting hundreds of them either.

The US military’s sheer amount of “stuff” is mind-boggling. AMARC, their worldwide logistics bases, etc.  There is nothing like it. 

This sheer amount of stuff/people and their recruiting/training system also means that they’re used to having comparatively lots of people doing the same job that we would with fewer people.  I’m not talking about us tacking in more jobs; I mean that they don’t really cross-train their folks as much as they could (or maybe should).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> To be fair, he would say that to any other operator of those aircraft.
> 
> It’s not like Australia or the UK is getting hundreds of them either.



Truth!   I was quick to point out the number of P-3s The Saints had.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> I spitballed 34, to have 16 operational 24/7 for my napkin Army.
> 
> Looking at Canada’s geography, and potential support to operations outside of Canada, I think 20 is still way too few.
> 
> That said I suspect 20 is the number we would accept down here as a minimum RCAF acquisition.  Anything less proves Canada isn’t even serious about its own territory let alone external operations



When MAG was “real”, it had 31-33 MPAs (‘107s)…I’d go as far to say we were envied by some Allies back then.


----------



## dimsum (19 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Truth!   I was quick to point out the number of P-3s The Saints had.


Norway has what, 5 million people? I don’t think it’s really fair to compare us and them.  

Same with NZ.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> Norway has what, 5 million people? I don’t think it’s really fair to compare us and them.
> 
> Same with NZ.



It was more to point out there are smaller fleets and some of them are pretty operationally active and effective.  😉

My experience talking with the low/middle rank USN VP folks is they see anything less than a Sqn deployment as “meh”.   Talking with my Dad, that isn’t a new thing and existed pre-Aurora days.   He also has similar stories of doing hot hand-overs where they were cold before the Cdn crews landed.  😁


----------



## dimsum (19 Dec 2022)

More importantly - will we follow the Norgies and name our planes? 

Vingtor (Battle-Thor), etc are pretty badass.

I just want names like “Cobra Chicken”, “Mad Marmot”, and “Ogopogo” to really stir fear into our enemies 🤣


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> More importantly - will we follow the Norgies and name our planes?
> 
> Vingtor (Battle-Thor), etc are pretty badass.



I think our names will be selected from a different  source more akin to modern Canadian society…”battle” seems like a very aggressive word.  

Maybe…


----------



## dapaterson (19 Dec 2022)

RCEME have nothing to do with CMMA.


----------



## GR66 (19 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> When MAG was “real”, it had 31-33 MPAs (‘107s)…I’d go as far to say we were envied by some Allies back then.


While I can't see us getting 32 x P-8s (when the current discussions are 8-12) what if we were able to get 16 which would be at least a minor upgrade from out current 14 x Auroras and then supplement them with another 16 x C-295's in the MPA configuration.

That would give us a total of 32 x armed MPAs with a High/Low capability mix without adding an additional airframe type for the RCAF to maintain. 

EITS's numbers would then look something like this:


Eye In The Sky said:


> I’ll give you my #s.
> 
> Line x 2 Sqns, 5 each, total 10 3 x P-8 and 3 x C-295 each = 6 x P-8 and 6 x C-295 Total
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Dec 2022)

In this case, I would advocate to have the 295 the platform Pilots, ACSOs and AES Ops qualify on when doing “whatever trg will be delivered from FAcT”.

Line Sqn 295-to-P8 trg could be a conversation course.

This wouldn’t be “new”. My dad did OTU on Neptunes in ‘67-‘68, went to 415 and did conversion to Argus while on Sqn.

We already have Sqns that have more than 1 aircraft type; Corms and Hercs on the ramp at 413 every day.  407 CP-8 Flt, 407 CC-295 Flt, etc.


----------



## dimsum (19 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> In this case, I would advocate to have the 295 the platform Pilots, ACSOs and AES Ops qualify on when doing “whatever trg will be delivered from FAcT”.
> 
> Line Sqn 295-to-P8 trg could be a conversation course.
> 
> This wouldn’t be “new”. My dad did OTU on Neptunes in ‘67-‘68, went to 415 and did conversion to Argus while on Sqn.


so, a Gonzo with a camera.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> so, a Gonzo with a camera.



A really good camera, and other nice things like AIS, laser designator/illuminator…

* we’d need to look at ESM for the 295


----------



## Spencer100 (21 Dec 2022)

And here it is!  "The Plan" (TM)

And everyone that said the Boeing/bombardier thing is water under bridge.  I think I had a discussion with some people that the government and certain families remember it very well. 

Bombardier CEO voices concerns over awarding Canada's defense contract to Boeing

I doubt the CEO and an important family didn't let some people (cough cough Trudeau) know about this.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Dec 2022)

The requirements for the CMMA have been public for some time.  What aircraft do they have that meets them all?   Not one that “could
exist”, one that does exist.

This doesn’t make the short list for me.


----------



## Spencer100 (21 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> The requirements for the CMMA have been public for some time.  What aircraft do they have that meets them all?


So Bombardier issues a protest.  Government then stops any movement on the file.  

Buy Canadian will sound great in the upcoming election.  Even better in Quebec.

After election wink wink...to the Bomber

Panel will be convened to go over a replacement and requirements.  (cough C-27J)  New specs and requirements.

Super conveniently P-8 out of production.  

As a side bonus pilots will get a lot of type flying for their post RCAF job.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Dec 2022)

I expect the expectations of NORAD will fit into this behind the scenes with weight.

Bombardier does not have a MPA to propose.  Simple.


----------



## Spencer100 (21 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I expect the expectations of NORAD will fit into this behind the scenes with weight.
> 
> Bombardier does not have a MPA to propose.  Simple.


They can point the BCON E-11A being build now.  So there is that.  Plus other conversions for the RAF etc.









						Global 6500
					

The Global 6500 aircraft has class-leading power for mission equipment, over 18 hours of endurance, proven reliability with class-leading maintenance intervals and ample cabin space for workstations and mission equipment.




					defense.bombardier.com
				




I'll take bets right now that if the Trudeau wins upcoming election no P-8.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Dec 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> I'll take bets right now that if the Trudeau wins upcoming election no P-8.



What are you betting?  I say we get P-8s even if Trudeau wins a majority.


----------



## Spencer100 (21 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> What are you betting?  I say we get P-8s even if Trudeau wins a majority.


Case of beer!  And if you are close to Windsor we drink it together (optional)


----------



## lenaitch (21 Dec 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> So Bombardier issues a protest.  Government then stops any movement on the file.
> 
> Buy Canadian will sound great in the upcoming election.  Even better in Quebec.
> 
> ...


How many sonobouys and torpedoes can it deploy?


----------



## GR66 (21 Dec 2022)

lenaitch said:


> How many sonobouys and torpedoes can it deploy?


Presumably it would be a variant the SAAB Swordfish that Bombardier would be offering.  From the SAAB Website:



> Saab’s Swordfish Maritime Patrol Aircraft is a strategic, multi-role ISR system that redefines air power in the maritime domain. No other MPA on the market delivers such a high level of mission performance in such an adaptable and sustainable package. With a payload of up to six torpedoes, anti-ship missiles, over 200 sonobuoys, the world’s most modern sensor suite and a mission endurance close to 13 hours, Swordfish is in a class of its own.


This other website gives some additional details on the weapon & sonobouy capacity of the Swordfish:


> Recent product development milestones at Saab and Bombardier have validated a significant increase in the available payload carried on Swordfish’s four, NATO-compatible hard points. Swordfish can now be armed with up to six lightweight-torpedoes for the ASW role. Swordfish can also carry the Saab RBS 15EF anti-ship missile or a mix of missiles and torpedoes to assure total sea control in every aspect. The Swordfish can equally carry a load of four search-and-rescue pods underlining its true multi-mission capability across the maritime domain.
> 
> Another capability that sets Swordfish apart from competitors is its ASW suite with a world-leading acoustics processor, magnetic anomaly detector (MAD), gravity-launching systems and an operational load of around 200 A, F and G size sonobuoys. This complete and highly-capable ASW suite enables Swordfish to locate, track and classify the most advanced, high-threat sub-surface targets for several hours, with a higher probability of detection.



By comparison the P-8 has 11 hardpoints (5 internal and 6 external hardpoints...although some sites say four external hard points) and can carry 129 "Size A" sonobouys. 

The issue that others have pointed out when the Swordfish has been proposed previously is that the torpedoes are on exterior hardpoints rather than in an internal bomb bay like on the P-8 and the icing at high altitudes is apparently quite problematic.  Not something I have any knowledge of or why missiles can work externally while torpedoes can't, but I do recall it being noted as an issue by people in the field in the past.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Dec 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> They can point the BCON E-11A being build now.  So there is that.  Plus other conversions for the RAF etc.



They could point to a pickup truck…neither meet the requirements for CMMA.  (Assuming you meant the BACN)


----------



## GR66 (21 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> They could point to a pickup truck…neither meet the requirements for CMMA.  (Assuming you meant the BACN)


I guess technically the Swordfish might(?) meet the CMMA requirements, but did Bombardier submit a response to the RFI?  If not, then what they hell are they complaining about?


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Dec 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Case of beer!  And if you are close to Windsor we drink it together (optional)


You’re on!  Case of beer - Spencer wins if Canada goes Bombardier, G2G wins if we get P-8s.  Windsor…I know a few folks in Baby Detroit, could make it a road trip! 👍🏼


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Dec 2022)

Anyone care to name a country that uses the Saab Swordfish MPA or any that are on order?

external torps - our torpedoes have specific environmental tolerances that must be maintained.  The only other thing I will say is you don’t want things like hail or birds hitting the forward part of a torp at the speeds MPAs fly.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Dec 2022)

GR66 said:


> I guess technically the Swordfish might(?) meet the CMMA requirements, but did Bombardier submit a response to the RFI?  If not, then what they hell are they complaining about?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Dec 2022)

How many C-27 MPAs are there out there now?


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Anyone care to name a country that uses the Saab Swordfish MPA or any that are on order?


Has that ever stopped us from buying something?  (Cyclone and Kingfisher anyone?)


Eye In The Sky said:


> external torps - our torpedoes have specific environmental tolerances that must be maintained.  The only other thing I will say is you don’t want things like hail or birds hitting the forward part of a torp at the speeds MPAs fly.


To be fair, we have similar limitations with missiles but it doesn’t stop us from flying with them externally.


----------



## GR66 (21 Dec 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Has that ever stopped us from buying something?  (Cyclone and Kingfisher anyone?)
> 
> To be fair, we have similar limitations with missiles but it doesn’t stop us from flying with them externally.


And neither of those were even built by Bombardier!

But seriously, does anyone know if Bombardier/SAAB even responded to the RFI?  If not then they really should STFU rather than whine when a company actually pursuing the contract puts forward proposals.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Dec 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Has that ever stopped us from buying something?  (Cyclone and Kingfisher anyone?



True, I just think our allies care more about our MPAs than they do those fleets.



SupersonicMax said:


> )
> 
> To be fair, we have similar limitations with missiles but it doesn’t stop us from flying with them externally.



Likely not the same fuel and same tolerances, but I’m not up to speed on fighter Ordnance.  AAM are designed to travel thru the air at extraordinary speeds; torps…not so much.  We have a heated BB for a reason. 

Drag is also a factor;  ONSTA time is important, it’s not unheard of to have transit to/from our area that is several hours.   I’ve done 12hr missions that are 4/4/4.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Dec 2022)

GR66 said:


> And neither of those were even built by Bombardier!
> 
> But seriously, does anyone know if Bombardier/SAAB even responded to the RFI?  If not then they really should STFU rather than whine when a company actually pursuing the contract puts forward proposals.


Meh.

Leonardo complained when the Chinook was downselected for MHLH.

PWGSC asked Leonardo how much the Cormorant’s hook was rated to carry the 4600kg gun?  Ans: 4000kg max.  Apparently Leonardo had a hard time with math.

I don’t expect Bombardier to behave any differently.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Dec 2022)

Anyone actually interested in details on operational capabilities, high level mandatory requirements, etc - go to the link below and read thru Annex A and B.   This should help guide thoughts on platforms like the Saab Swordfish, P-8, etc.



			https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2022/02/10/40e474721d25ec41e82e2941aa3754f5/canadian_multi-mission_aircraft_project_request_for_information_02.10.2022.pdf
		


Consider a bombbay a requirement.

RFI submission deadlines and requirements have been public since the doc above was released.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Dec 2022)

lenaitch said:


> How many sonobouys and torpedoes can it deploy?



Zero.  It doesn’t exist.  😁


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Dec 2022)

Just to comment on the “icing at high altitudes” part.  Icing doesn’t always or only happen at high altitude. It’s more dependant on where the freezing level is at, generally speaking.

A MPA would “climb thru” the FL on the transit to their op area at high altitude.  As it gets close, it will decend to a lower altitude to do things like drop sono’s, RADAR search, do the S part of SAR, etc.  sometimes it might stay below the FL, or climb thru/decent back thru the FL multiple times to reposition, maintain RF coverage, conducts comms, etc.

Icing can happen fast and accumulate quickly and shedding it uses energy.  Some de-icing can be done with things like engine bleed air, some is done with electrical power.  Generating that power burns fuel.  Ice creates drag and weight which requires more power which burns more fuel.

Any amount of time you can use On Station is valuable, whether it’s prosecuting a submerged contact, SAR, ISR, etc.

Icing is never going to increase your ONSTA time.

* sorry if that is a bit “Capt Obvious”;  I just figure many folks aren’t familiar with LRP flying.


----------



## Spencer100 (22 Dec 2022)

You guys are all correct.  

My point was that the specs are meaningless if things get political. 

To my spidersense if Bombardier is talking about it they have something in their head.  One they are happy that they just deliveried the first new build E-11A to the USAF.   They have started Bombardier Defence market something they did not do in the past. I was told in the long past from an Ottawa friend the deal for government money on the airliner programs they were not to develop a defence side of the house.  They had a little but no big programs or defence only products to sell. IE they sold the missile division to Thales. The government did not want to have a large defence contractor they would have to support with orders, money etc.  Using the defence budget to support an aerospace prime was not seen as a good idea.  Plus having a population of people and workers that support the defence budget is not good for the post nation state. Example GDLS Canada.  You know if the current government could have blown up the plant they would have.  They inherented the Saudi contact.  They criticized in opposition but had to live with it because  of the London MP are liberals and Unifor told them they had to keep the plant open. So those ridings with major defence employers and plant in them like defence budgets. (See US defence industry base) So to keep plants you have to export and/or buy them yourselves.  As they foresaw things like decades earlier so they did not want a aerospace OEM with a large defence side. 
 There are reasons things are like they are in Canada. 

Ok back to the story. Bombardier just has just one product to sell now Globals.  Governments are their biggest customers.  Middle Eastern Oil dictators being a large one.  Many many countries use them.  VIP transport being the largest usage.  But they have been sold to the USAF as the E11A BACN. To the RAF as the Sentinal (older) etc. 

So Bombardier a tiny shadow of its old self is free of the any No defence side deals and wants in.  I was surprised when they put out a press release saying they were marketing Bombardier Defence Division.  That is something they never did.  They did always say their platforms could be used for defence missions. SAR, VIP, etc.  They never had a Defense division marketing products.  Yes they did have defence services marketing training and MRO. 

Anyways that's what I see.  Plus the closeness of that company to the leadership makes me think there is more afoot.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Dec 2022)

Maybe they can put this card up their sleeve for
Something they really want down the road from the current GoC.  If they felt they had something the met the HLMRs, they could have submitted a response to the RFI.

Just like anyone else…but maybe, they assessed their “MPA” loaded with all the stores and avionics and people and fuel wouldn’t meet the HLMR.


----------



## KevinB (22 Dec 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> You guys are all correct.
> 
> My point was that the specs are meaningless if things get political.



The issue is it is Political, but not just Internal Canadian Politics.  

Your landlord is requiring a new security deposit.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Just to comment on the “icing at high altitudes” part.  Icing doesn’t always or only happen at high altitude. It’s more dependant on where the freezing level is at, generally speaking.
> 
> A MPA would “climb thru” the FL on the transit to their op area at high altitude.  As it gets close, it will decend to a lower altitude to do things like drop sono’s, RADAR search, do the S part of SAR, etc.  sometimes it might stay below the FL, or climb thru/decent back thru the FL multiple times to reposition, maintain RF coverage, conducts comms, etc.
> 
> ...



As a passenger in Turbo-Props in northern latitudes I can state categorically that my most interesting flights have been sitting in window seats when props and wings start to shed ice.  I didn't know the fuselages were armoured..... They are armoured aren't they?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Dec 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> As a passenger in Turbo-Props in northern latitudes I can state categorically that my most interesting flights have been sitting in window seats when props and wings start to shed ice.  I didn't know the fuselages were armoured..... They are armoured aren't they?


Somewhat, yes.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Dec 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Somewhat, yes.


Thank God!


----------



## MTShaw (22 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Anyone actually interested in details on operational capabilities, high level mandatory requirements, etc - go to the link below and read thru Annex A and B.   This should help guide thoughts on platforms like the Saab Swordfish, P-8, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have given a first glance and was just going post it. I don’t know if the P-8 apprpriate because we either don’t know or can’t state the planes actually capabilities. 

Should make a fun process to watch.

But people here really, really like the P-8. 

we have bought off the shelf for some stuff. But as I said way way above, I don’t think this will be MOTS.


----------



## Spencer100 (22 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> The issue is it is Political, but not just Internal Canadian Politics.
> 
> Your landlord is requiring a new security deposit.


I would believe this is the thinking "The landlord can shovel it!"  We just put in an order for the F-35 at great political cost so we are good for ten or so years.   Plus thanks for thinking about us heading up a Haiti mission.  We have Top Men, Top Men I tell you working on it now. We'll get back to you.  Ukraine we just sent stuff so we're good. NORAD radars stuff ok we will put something in a future budget but you are still on the hook for most of it.  Anything else?  Yes.  Sorry got go Convene something we'll call you back.     LOL 

PMO office high fives all around.  Success!


----------



## dimsum (22 Dec 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> My point was that the specs are meaningless if things get political.


Sure, then Boeing will counter-sue that we weren't following the High Level Mandatory Requirements.

Also, unlike other situations (C-27 vs C-295, F-35 vs Gripen, etc) their proposal doesn't even exist.  Swordfish is not really a thing - it was quietly shelved in 2018 with no working model, and the Global 6500 is flying as a completely different role.  The GoC could (and should) easily say "ok, please show me the full working model, not a developmental concept, of your proposal that you can build within the next few years." 

Oh, I want in on this bet too.  I'll even bring a case of the good, craft stuff.


----------



## Spencer100 (22 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> Sure, then Boeing will counter-sue that we weren't following the High Level Mandatory Requirements.
> 
> Also, unlike other situations (C-27 vs C-295, F-35 vs Gripen, etc) their proposal doesn't even exist.  Swordfish is not really a thing - it was quietly shelved in 2018 with no working model, and the Global 6500 is flying as a completely different role.  The GoC could (and should) easily say "ok, please show me the full working model, not a developmental concept, of your proposal that you can build within the next few years."
> 
> Oh, I want in on this bet too.  I'll even bring a case of the good, craft stuff.


You're in.   

In all reality I hope your right.  I'm just super negative about the current course of this country as governed.


----------



## dimsum (22 Dec 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> You're in.
> 
> In all reality I hope your right.  I'm just super negative about the current course of this country as governed.


I think that Kingfisher and Cyclone have given the GoC enough black eyes that even political parties will say "hell no" to being a launch customer for anything in the near future.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Dec 2022)

"Launch" in the broadest possible sense of the word.


----------



## FSTO (22 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> I think that Kingfisher and Cyclone have given the GoC enough black eyes that even political parties will say "hell no" to being a launch customer for anything in the near future.


Does the GoC even know its been getting jabs/upper cuts/haymakers in the face by its silly defence decisions?


----------



## Spencer100 (22 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> Does the GoC even know its been getting jabs/upper cuts/haymakers in the face by its silly defence decisions?


Beat me to it.  The PMO people can't tell a rifle from a howitzer.  Defence is just a pesky file that is given the least amount of attention they can get away from.  And the resources given are put to use on soft side things, social issues and change in the organization.

I don't think people here truly understand the vision of the current government.  When The PM says we are "post nation state" believe him. That is his thinking right or wrong.   Canada as currently constituted is flawed in their minds.  The defence of Canada is something that is not very high up on the list.  And only something to be done because they must.  Many in the halls of powers don't realize the change that is happening now.  They are operating under of a high minded goal (in their minds) of remaking the economic and social systems of Canada and the world.  Buying anything for the military just a set back for them.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Dec 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> As a passenger in Turbo-Props in northern latitudes I can state categorically that my most interesting flights have been sitting in window seats when props and wings start to shed ice.  I didn't know the fuselages were armoured..... They are armoured aren't they?




There was one transit flight from Guam to Hawaii, where we got into some _significant_ icing.   When you’re estimating buildup in inches and it’s increasing despite de-icing going at max, and you’re flying over “nowhere” and nowhere is what surrounds you for xxxx miles…

Only time I was even a tad nervous flying…


----------



## KevinB (22 Dec 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Beat me to it.  The PMO people can't tell a rifle from a howitzer.  Defence is just a pesky file that is given the least amount of attention they can get away from.  And the resources given are put to use on soft side things, social issues and change in the organization.
> 
> I don't think people here truly understand the vision of the current government.  When The PM says we are "post nation state" believe him. That is his thinking right or wrong.   Canada as currently constituted is flawed in their minds.  The defence of Canada is something that is not very high up on the list.  And only something to be done because they must.  Many in the halls of powers don't realize the change that is happening now.  They are operating under of a high minded goal (in their minds) of remaking the economic and social systems of Canada and the world.  Buying anything for the military just a set back for them.


Trade…

You rent an apartment above a bustling office building, that if necessary will concrete over your door.  I understand that certain implications have been clearly explained if the list isn’t adhered too. 

I don’t think the PM wants to be the leader of the first failed post nation state. 


  The F-35 buy is really insignificant for numbers even with the ‘full’ 88 number that is projected.   Given the industry offsets Canada has in the F-35 program, 88 was simply to remain on that table. 

The P-8 is a pretty easy sale, it’s low risk non developmental system, and it can be marketed for Canadian voters as a NORAD/Canadian Defensive item, which has been an announced Liberal commitment for a while.


----------



## Spencer100 (22 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> Trade…
> 
> You rent an apartment above a bustling office building, that if necessary will concrete over your door.  I understand that certain implications have been clearly explained if the list isn’t adhered too.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you said.

Its just the family, Quebec and Justin ties that get me to think....is there something more there. Why at this late stage do they now say "hey we want to build the MPA!"  (I did put some of my thoughts above of why, which may not be worth 2 cents)   It just has a weird sound and timing to it. 

It was even more strongly about this buy put out by Bombardier then the SAR plane bids. At that time they just said you can buy the Dash-8 but it has no ramp.  You want a ramp we will send you a development bill for it.  That was it.  And at the time it was third party people talking about buy Canadian.  

Like I say your mileage may vary.


----------



## KevinB (22 Dec 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> I agree with everything you said.
> 
> Its just the family, Quebec and Justin ties that get me to think....is there something more there. Why at this late stage do they now say "hey we want to build the MPA!"  (I did put some of my thoughts above of why, which may not be worth 2 cents)   It just has a weird sound and timing to it.
> 
> ...


I have no doubt there will be another distraction for Quebec by the PMO.  
   Probably Canada jumping into FLRAA with the Bell V-280 Valor, and some sub components being done in Mirabel.


----------



## Spencer100 (22 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> I have no doubt there will be another distraction for Quebec by the PMO.
> Probably Canada jumping into FLRAA with the Bell V-280 Valor, and some sub components being done in Mirabel.


Yup...

Do you owe me case of beer for the V-280?    can't remember   

But that would be a smart idea bout jumping in on the V-280 and get sub work early on.  So we are not going to do that.  

Second thought. That Airbus helicopter interesting though...........how much did you say to Canadianize it?  Perfect lets do that.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Dec 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Second thought. That Airbus helicopter interesting though...........how much did you say to Canadianize it? Perfect lets do that.


Negatory…ask Australia how that went for them with Tigre and Taipan.


----------



## dimsum (22 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Only time I was even a tad nervous flying…


My two examples are similar to each other and (sort of) to your example:

Chips light, so shut down one engine about 1000nm from home, in the middle of the Pacific
Chips light (I swear I may be a jinx) in an op area, with nowhere "safe" for a few hours flight



Good2Golf said:


> Negatory…ask Australia how that went for them with Tigre and Taipan.


Their "she'll be 'right" approach to procurement has bit them more than a few times.  They have had some great Army (land, not just aviation) and Navy procurement SNAFUs*.  The only saving grace for them is that all political parties know that they need to have a decent Defence Force bc the US, UK, etc aren't nearby. 

Although, now that there are USMC folks on rotation in the Top End and potentially US bombers stationed there, who knows if that has changed their calculus.

* The most recent one is probably the most egregious.  The new subs would have been a French designed SSN, _converted to SSK_, and since they deal with the US so much, probably fitted with US equipment vs the French/EU stuff.  This isn't "Australianizing", this is straight up changing a powerplant for a boat.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Dec 2022)

Just putting it out there - when I google "Chips Light" this is what comes up... was the pilot getting ready for a storm, but on a diet?


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> My two examples are similar to each other and (sort of) to your example:
> 
> Chips light, so shut down one engine about 1000nm from home, in the middle of the Pacific
> Chips light (I swear I may be a jinx) in an op area, with nowhere "safe" for a few hours flight


Main transmission chip light settled on a decommissioned railway trestle bridge: enters the chat. 😉


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> My two examples are similar to each other and (sort of) to your example:
> 
> Chips light, so shut down one engine about 1000nm from home, in the middle of the Pacific



That’s a long 1000nm…



dimsum said:


> Chips light (I swear I may be a jinx) in an op area, with nowhere "safe" for a few hours flight



Sandy place?  Another long flight back to the shacks…


----------



## dimsum (22 Dec 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Just putting it out there - when I google "Chips Light" this is what comes up... was the pilot getting ready for a storm, but on a diet?


Something like this.  If it detects stuff, the light (Chips light) goes on.






						Magnetic chip detector - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Dec 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Just putting it out there - when I google "Chips Light" this is what comes up... was the pilot getting ready for a storm, but on a diet?



That is EXACTLY what it means.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> Something like this.  If it detects stuff, the light (Chips light) goes on.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Orientation a bit different, but you get the idea… 😉

Photo credit: Skiesmag.com


----------



## Spencer100 (22 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Negatory…ask Australia how that went for them with Tigre and Taipan.
> View attachment 75578


It was sarcasm


----------



## Spencer100 (22 Dec 2022)

For flavour









						How a Luxury Business Jet Was Transformed Into the World’s Most Sophisticated Spyplane
					

This Bombardier Challenger 650’s interior has been outfitted with routers, computers and IT equipment to monitor the Ukraine border. It’s the one of many business jets entering America&…




					robbreport.com


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Dec 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> It was sarcasm


Although with the Canadian Government you never know… 🤔


----------



## Quirky (23 Dec 2022)

The P8 will be a nice pipeline for pilots and techs to transfer into WJ, AC or any other airline that operates the 737.


----------



## kev994 (23 Dec 2022)

Quirky said:


> The P8 will be a nice pipeline for pilots and techs to transfer into WJ, AC or any other airline that operates the 737.


Those guys don’t care about time on type, at least for the pilots. They train everyone from scratch anyway. They’re more than happy to take someone with any military time. For a small operator that’s concerned about the cost of the type rating it would matter.


----------

