# Future of ASW?



## Bograt (25 Oct 2005)

Before I formally pose the question, I would like to say I have only rudimentary knowledge of the subject- limited entirely   to what I have picked up while living under the roof of an old Argus/Aurora Tacco, collected while at on OJT at a MH squadron, and simulated with video games  Alas, I am curious to know what some of you view the future of ASW in the CF?

With the added capabilities of the CP-140, and the new S-92 is there are new bright horizon for ASW, or the contrary?

Does the CF (DND/Gov) continue to view the threat of subs? Where does ASW fit within the Mobilization doctrine?

As a 32U who always wanted to fly ASW, I am curious to know if there is a future in this art.

Looking forward to your thoughts.


----------



## geo (25 Oct 2005)

Aurora and Frigates are prime ASW platforms. (Sea things are supposed to be)
Have no knowledge on the Sikorski helicopters we've selected though I remember reading that ASW was part of the specs we requested


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Oct 2005)

From what I have seen over the past year the navy seems to be leaning back towards regaining our former skils and reputation as an ASW power. Guess we will see.


----------



## SHF (25 Oct 2005)

Hey Bograt,

My political hardsell,

As a multi-mission aircraft, the modernised CP-140M will be able to partake is several disciplines of warfare.  The keystone to training and operations, has for decades been ASW.  All other roles for current employment flow nicely from the demanding crew and station tasks associated with hunting and attacking submarines.  New sensors in the upgrade include a state of the art acoustic suite capable of several modes of passive and active tracking of submarines.  The new Radar will be able to easily discriminate between a small fishing boat and a periscope.  The new MAD (magnetic anomaly detector) will be able to pinpoint a target's exact position.  The EOIR can steal the night from a snorting submarine by turning night into day for the Aurora crew.  Currently thought is being given to overland roles as that is where the national focus lies.  In years to come, Canadian or allied interests may be threatened by sub-surface threats.  When that time comes the 10 man Aurora crew will be kitted and trained to bring the battle to the foe.

Today we surveil where directed and tasked.  ASW still remains our core training as it, of all large crew warfare skills, remains the hardest.  Part of future upgrades include wing spar replacement and new weapons fit potentially including SLAM (standoff land attack missile).  If you, as a pilot, want to come our way, the next decade promises excitement.

"ASW is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid"
unknown MPA crewmember


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Oct 2005)

ASW is here to stay, IMHO.  While we are just preserving an ASW mind set with the Sea King (vice an operationally useful capability) right now, the S-92 with it's low frequency active sonar, sonobuoy processor, EO pod, and APS-143 radar will provide an awesome capability.  It will truly change how we do ASW.  ASW will remain important, if for no other reason than force protection for Gen Hillier's "Big Honkin Ships".  That said, I don't think ASW will be our only focus.  Look at us to fly over land alot more in the future with guys in green onboard and look for us to be a much more useful asset in the surface warfare game.

Cheers!


----------



## Crash (28 Mar 2006)

Ask any Commander of a Carrier Strike Group "what is the most worrying threat to the group?", and don't be too surprised when he responds "Submarines."  - actually did this just a couple months ago and wasn't all that surprised, even noting the fact that most of the conversation concerned fast mover threats.

ASW may not necessarily be in vogue at any particular time but the threat from submarines is omnipresent for a blue water navy and dependant on the littoral area, for brown water operations as well.

As for the CP-140 and S-92, I would agree with SeaKingTacco that the force protection requirements of the a SCTF (aka the big honking ships and an associated "administrative+" amphibious role) will necessitate a significant ASW effort.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Mar 2006)

SHF said:
			
		

> Hey Bograt,
> 
> My political hardsell,
> 
> ...



SHF , brother, That brough a tear to my eye  

I've been flying the CP-140 for a little over a year now. ASW is as much art as it is science.  IMHO it is a skill very much perishable.  It is something we must always practice in order to remain proficient.  Other roles will come to the CP-140M but ASW will remain at the center for as long as canada has a coastline.

Bograt,

Hope to see you here one day.........Practicioner of Awefully Slow Warfare


----------



## Bograt (29 Mar 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Bograt,
> 
> Hope to see you here one day.........Practicioner of Awefully Slow Warfare



I am leaning more and more to MH. After speaking with 404-405 guys, my enthusiasm for the flying galley has wained. Any chance of you grabbing the EW courses? I put my name in, but the big *U *  after 32 is a bit of a hinderance in getting the sexy courses- including advanced SERE.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Mar 2006)

Bograt said:
			
		

> I am leaning more and more to MH. After speaking with 404-405 guys,



Well thats your first mistake right there....you are talking to the wrong guys  ;D



			
				Bograt said:
			
		

> Any chance of you grabbing the EW courses?



Basic EW course is maditory for my MOC ( i have yet to take it due to the tempo of things here but hopefully this year), the advanced EW isnt that hard to get either.  I may be going on the Space aplications course in June too.


----------



## mdh (29 Mar 2006)

> flying galley



Slang for which airplane? Just curious, and anxious to keep up on the latest air force lingo  ;D

cheers


----------



## aesop081 (29 Mar 2006)

mdh said:
			
		

> Slang for which airplane? Just curious, and anxious to keep up on the latest air force lingo  ;D
> 
> cheers



CP-140 Aurora


----------



## Armymatters (29 Mar 2006)

I am hearing that the CF is highly interested in the Boeing P8 MMA as a replacement for the CP-140. Any can elaborate on this?


----------



## aesop081 (29 Mar 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> I am hearing that the CF is highly interested in the Boeing P8 MMA as a replacement for the CP-140. Any can elaborate on this?



We are comited to the CP-140M for the next 15-20 years.


----------



## canuck101 (29 Mar 2006)

He may be referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-8_Multimission_Maritime_Aircraft.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Mar 2006)

canuck101 said:
			
		

> He may be referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-8_Multimission_Maritime_Aircraft.



I have seen that link before but for the record, the breifing i got that told us that the CP-140 was going to be around until 2025 isnt available on Wikepedia. Enough money and effort has so far been spent on AIMP that the NDHQ geniuses have decide to stick with the Aurora.  I have been flying the CP-140 for a little over a year and unless something very drastic happens, i will retire with the Aurora still in the fleet.  i wont discuss the state of AIMP for OPSEC reasons so dont bother asking.

I certainly would lve to see the ramp here full of P-8 but........


----------



## Armymatters (29 Mar 2006)

In that case, how old will the airframes be? I am thinking we will be pushing 30 or more years on the CP-140 myself, unless we get refurbished airframes from the US or we completely rebuild the airframes, and also, about how many flight hours and cycles in your opinion will go through each airframe on average by 2025? Is it anywhere near the end of the expected airframe life of the CP-140, or are we safe for a while, aesop? Thanks.

Also, I too think that a ramp full of P-8's for the CF would be nice, with a few Boeing Wedgetail's for our own AWACS and a trio of Boeing Buisness Jets for government usage. We will have fleet commonality in terms of parts and engines for all of these roles.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Mar 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> In that case, how old will the airframes be? I am thinking we will be pushing 30 or more years on the CP-140 myself, unless we get refurbished airframes from the US or we completely rebuild the airframes, and also, about how many flight hours and cycles in your opinion will go through each airframe on average by 2025? Is it anywhere near the end of the expected airframe life of the CP-140, or are we safe for a while, aesop? Thanks.



We received our first CP-140 in 1980....that means they are 25 years old now.  most of them are past 20000 flying hours.  The design life of the P-3 airframe ( of which the CP-140 is a derivative) is 18000 hours.  You do the math from there.  With the retirement of one CP-140A Arcturs and the impending retiremnt of the other 2, there will be an even greater stress placed on the aurora fleet.

The reason the USN is pushing hard for the MMA is that their P-3s are being retired at an accelerated rate.  They are aging out too fast due to Op tempo. After the cancelation of the P-7 program, the USN was left with a declining fleet of various versions of the P-3C that are aproaching at the  end of their service life.  there are no refurbished planes to be had from the USN also as their P-3s are nothing like our P-3s so no good to us.  Anything else i can't/won't discuss here


----------

