# Auroras for Afstan?



## MarkOttawa

"On guard for thee and me"
Comox Valley Record, Dec. 13
http://www.comoxvalleyrecord.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=8&cat=43&id=791062&more=



> The frigid plains of Alberta might seem like a strange place to find an aircraft designed to hunt submarines.
> 
> But a new skill honed by 407 Squadron in a pair of Alberta-based exercises may be more than a simple change from the sea. In fact, the unit’s participation in two November exercises — Wolf Safari and Maple Guardian — may mark a sea change in Aurora operations.
> 
> Wolf Safari, held at 4 Wing Cold Lake from Nov. 5–10, was the largest exercise yet of the Air Expeditionary concept. A pair of Auroras, one from Comox and one from 14 Wing Greenwood’s Maritime Proving and Evaluation Unit, joined CF-18s and KC-130 air refuellers to test the air force’s ability to deploy high-readiness forces to “bare-bones” airfields anywhere in the world...
> 
> ...As soldiers on the ground sharpened their war-fighting skills, high above them the Aurora demonstrated its growing prowess at an entirely new role — direct support to troops in combat.
> 
> “It makes perfect sense to be as inter-operational with the army as we have traditionally been with the navy,” says detachment commander Maj. Mark Mombourquette. “ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) is what we do well. We’re just changing the environment we’re doing it in.”
> 
> The focus on this new “overland” role began more than a year ago with the introduction of the Aurora’s powerful new Canadian-built Electro-Optical Infra-Red imaging system.
> 
> Replacing the aircraft’s original infrared set-up, the high-resolution Wescam EO/IR MX-20 camera combines a vastly improved IR capability with a stunning daylight zoom mode. Together, they give the Aurora an unprecedented ability to monitor targets from great distances...
> 
> “In direct support, you see the benefits of your efforts in real time. In a way, it’s now easier to see the link between what we’re doing and the threat than at any time since the end of the Cold War. I find the overland role quite motivating.”
> 
> While the results were promising, Mombourquette cautions that much remains to be learned about the direct support role. When it comes to communications, for instance, both the army and the air force still speak a slightly different language.
> 
> Many procedures remain different, requiring what Mombourquette refers to as “further cross-pollination.” And though it has been technically mastered, tactical mastery of the MX-20 on the battlefield has only just begun.



"Military wants "large as possible’ slice of flying time"
Halifax Chronicle Herald
http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/545974.html



> Military planners want as much flying time as they can get from the Aurora long-range patrol aircraft if they are to be used to conduct surveillance flights over Afghanistan.
> 
> Documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show Canada’s Auroras, most of which are based at 14 Wing Greenwood in Nova Scotia, are wanted for use in the war-torn country.
> 
> The "preferred approach" would be for Canadian Expeditionary Force Command to get "as large as possible" a slice of the Aurora fleet’s yearly flying rate, say documents the military prepared in October.
> 
> "This is a critical part of defining any (concept of operations)," say the documents, obtained by the NDP.
> 
> The Auroras have been fitted with upgraded equipment that will allow the airplanes to conduct increased and more detailed surveillance over land.
> 
> Using the aircraft for overland intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance is a new role for Auroras, say the documents, which note the planes may need an army liaison officer to be part of the on-board crew.
> 
> The availability of Auroras that are configured to fly over land is limited, the documents say.
> 
> "Configuring more aircraft will take time and money."..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Jammer

IMHO...No chance in hell.


----------



## gaspasser

She's built for this type of job.  Wheather she's sub hunting, fisheries interdiction, or looking long range for timmie up in the mountains.  I think she'll do a good job.  It'll be good to see the girls again.


----------



## peaches

USN were using armed P3's in A-Stan for CAS, carrying maverik missiles & JDAM bombs, make good sense for us to be going in this direction...


----------



## aesop081

Jammer said:
			
		

> IMHO...No chance in hell.



Well its a good thing that the CDS, CLS, CAS and us CP-140 crews dont agree with you

BYT Driver......Thats not a picture of a CP-140 Aurora you posted.......Look closely, Its tail #120........also look at the lack of ESM pods on the wingtips as well as the abscence of the SRS anteneas. You posted a pic of a CP-140A Arcturus.


----------



## gaspasser

I know! I'm not that far away from it that my regoc is off of the old girls.  I've given her enough gas to know it's 120, but it's all I had.  And it's not YZX she's at, possible YAW? I still agree that they can use 140/1 in Afgan, better platform for IRS.  
How's that nav?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

This is a genuine question, what can an Aurora do that a TUAV of Pred or any other UAV out there do, taking into account OPSEC of course?


----------



## aesop081

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> This is a genuine question, what can an Aurora do that a TUAV of Pred or any other UAV out there do, taking into account OPSEC of course?



I don't think anyone should answer that here....i know i won't , sorry.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Like I said I'm not looking at OPSEC, just why send Aurora's when TUAV's can do the job, ie "the Aurora's can see more'"


----------



## Globesmasher

It's all a moot point.

After the latest round of discussions there is NO money and NO desire by senior leadership to send them.
Mainly its the NO money issue ......................
Cmdr 1 Cdn Air Div just finished some briefings that pretty much nailed the coffin shut on this topic.

Same old story ...... NO money.  

Shame really.


----------



## flyboy140

It seems that dollar issues continue to be the prophylactic on the penis of progress. A shame really because many of us in the CP140 community feel we have something to offer in the overland role.


----------



## Good2Golf

...at the end of the day, I bet you it really is about money, although not the way most people are  thinking about it.

...three words:   "centre wing boxes"

We'll see if the passage of time bears this out...

G2G


----------



## aesop081

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...at the end of the day, I bet you it really is about money, although not the way most people are  thinking about it.
> 
> ...three words:   "centre wing boxes"
> 
> We'll see if the passage of time bears this out...
> 
> G2G



PM inbound


----------



## Good2Golf




----------



## CBH99

The concept of an overland ability for the Aurora is definitely intriguing...but what about aircraft availability?  Some people have questioned whether or not there are an adequate number of airframes in service to sufficiently patrol the coasts for all of the various illegal activities that may take place - what would converting a few airframes and sending them to A-Stan do in terms of our ability to monitor our coasts??

(Question, not suggestive.)


----------



## aesop081

CBH99 said:
			
		

> what would converting a few airframes and sending them to A-Stan do in terms of our ability to monitor our coasts??
> 
> (Question, not suggestive.)



There is no conversion to make.....the aircraft does a maritime patrol one day...goes and does overland ISR the next......


----------



## cp140tech

I doubt we could swing it, even if direction came down the pipe to send a few Auroras to Afghanistan.... which I don't think is going to happen.  Wait and see I guess.


----------



## aesop081

There are issues but, what do i know....i only fly on them and operate the sytems that are used for overland ISR


----------



## cp140tech

Are you always this passive aggressive?  

  I'm familiar with what AESOP's do.  I'm certain that you have an appreciation for the limitations that we are facing with this airframe.  The systems you operate aren't going to do much good from the ramp.


----------



## aesop081

cp140tech said:
			
		

> Are you always this passive aggressive?
> 
> I'm familiar with what AESOP's do.  I'm certain that you have an appreciation for the limitations that we are facing with this airframe.  The systems you operate aren't going to do much good from the ramp.



Wasnt a shot at you or anyone else...sorry if it sounded as such.  I know the other issues pretty well.....i've been CNX'd alot !!!


----------



## cp140tech

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> Wasnt a shot at you or anyone else...sorry if it sounded as such.  I know the other issues pretty well.....i've been CNX'd alot !!!



  My mistake, I apologize for misreading your post.  

  I'd love to head overseas, it just seems like there are too many obstacles for us to overcome.  Like I said, I guess the grown-ups will let us know when we need to.  

  We try our best, but we end up with a fair number of scrubbed missions as well.


----------



## weiss

question, maybe slighty off topic.  Why "Afstan" ?  Is it what you guys call it for short?  I am asking 'cause I haev heard "Afghan" before, not afstan.


----------



## Good2Golf

Afstan, A-stan, AFG, Asscrackistan, the sandbox, etc......you'll hear them all.  None meant derogatorily, I'm sure, but some said with appreciation of the physical environment which can be a thin-aired, hot dust bowl at times...

G2G


----------



## MarkOttawa

More speculation:

Canada to beef up military punch in Afghanistan, but no more infantry: general
http://www.news1130.com/news/international/article.jsp?content=w011947A



> ...
> Also last fall, the Defence Department ordered up a $360,000 contract to outfit a suite of countermeasure systems on an unspecified number of CP-140 Aurora coastal patrol aircraft. Such hardware is used to confuse incoming missiles and the tender left little doubt as to the reason for the upgrade.
> 
> The work was being done "in order to safely permit CP-140 operations in hostile theatres," said the contract award notice, obtained by The Canadian Press.
> 
> The aircraft - normally used for maritime patrols - would be put into the skies of land-locked Afghanistan for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. Currently the United States and Australia are using their version of the Aurora - P-3 Orions - for exactly that purpose here.
> 
> The air force has made no formal announcement on when the patrol planes could join the fight...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

weiss: "Afstan" was the short form used in External Affairs telegrams in the 1970s.

Auroras over land
by DavidAkin on Sun 28 Jan 2007
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/1/28/2689876.html



> Macdonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. of Richmond, B.C. is moving ahead with previously announced plans to put some new kinds of radar on Canada’s fleet of CP-140 Aurora patrol aircraft.
> 
> “The CP140 Aurora patrol aircraft were acquired by Canada in 1980 and are used primarily for maritime surveillance. When the current Aurora upgrade program is completed, the radar surveillance solution on the Aurora will be able to detect, track, and image objects moving on land or sea,” MDA says in its press release.
> 
> MDA and DND have been working on this sincce 2003. After testing and development of this new radar, four Aurora’s will be outfitted with the prototype land radar beginning in April. The fleet will be upgraded with the new radar once the production issues are sorted out.
> 
> It’s all part of a long-range plan, through to about 2025, to continue to modernize the Auroras.
> 
> And there is some thinking that the giving Aurora the ability to complete surveillance missions over land — as well as improving its defensive capabilities from a land-based threat — means that the Aurora’s could be soon be deployed in support of Canada’s forces in Afghanistan.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## aesop081

:rofl:

Thats all i can say to all that


----------



## cp140tech

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> Thats all i can say to all that



  I'm right there with you.


----------



## aesop081

Guess they don't understand that AIMP and ASLEP are 2 different things......One has money and is going on, the other doesnt have any money and that is going to render the other pointless.....


----------



## cp140tech

We do seem to be working at cross purposes.  I have absolutely no idea where the grown-ups see this fleet in the next few years, let alone what our capability will be to meet their 'vision'.  
  Oh well, I'll keep the engines running, you guys worry about the flying, and they can worry about the rest.

  play safe.


----------



## aesop081

Article from the official AF site on our recent involvement in 29 palms, California.  This was in support of USMC pre-deployement training for Iraq.

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/19wing/news/releases_e.asp?cat=118&id=2363


----------



## JackD

This article says something about scrapping/selling 6 of the Auroras.. http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=22fbb1c1-2162-4a26-b721-f153a000e36e....  alas. I think the verdict here (on this site) would be that more are needed not less. What say you, gentlemen? Can the multi-capabilities of the Aurora be replaced by drones, or is the individuals who make these decisions drones themselves?


----------



## Thorvald

More info on this topic and the new radar... (didn't see this posted yet so here it is).

http://www.isrjournal.com/story.php?F=2510667



> Canadian CP-140 radar upgrade moves forward
> January 26, 2007
> 
> Canada’s military has embarked on the final phase of a multi-year plan to transform its version of the Lockheed P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft into a battlefield surveillance platform.
> 
> MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates (MDA) is the prime contractor on the 200 million Canadian dollar program to develop a ground surveillance radar capability for 16 of Canada’s 18 CP-140 Aurora aircraft, acquired in 1980 for the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission.
> MDA said it will now complete ground and flight testing of four prototype radars, while delivering 16 production systems for installation during the next Aurora upgrade slated for April.
> 
> “When the upgrade is completed, the Auroras will be able to detect, track and image anything moving on land or sea,” the company said.
> Visually indistinguishable from other Orions, the Aurora’s feature an improved ASW electronics suite similar to that installed on the U.S. Navy’s S-3 Viking, a carrier-based ASW/patrol aircraft.
> 
> Canada’s CP-140s flew around 500 sorties in the Persian Gulf during the post-9/11 period, in support of U.S. operations in the region. They have also been used on anti-drug missions for NORAD and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
> 
> Two units fly the CP-140: the 19 Wing at Comox, British Columbia, and the 14 Wing at Greenwood, Nova Scotia. Typical crews include two pilots, a flight engineer, 4 navigators and three sensor operators.


----------



## aesop081

> Canadian CP-140 radar upgrade moves forward
> January 26, 2007
> 
> (1) *Canada’s military has embarked on the final phase of a multi-year plan to transform its version of the Lockheed P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft into a battlefield surveillance platform.*
> 
> MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates (MDA) is the prime contractor on the 200 million Canadian dollar program (2)  *to develop a ground surveillance radar capability * for 16 of Canada’s 18 CP-140 Aurora aircraft, acquired in 1980 for the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission.
> MDA said it will now complete ground and flight testing of four prototype radars, while delivering 16 production systems for installation during the next Aurora upgrade slated for April.
> 
> “When the upgrade is completed, the Auroras will be able to detect, track and image anything moving on land or sea,” the company said.
> Visually indistinguishable from other Orions, the Aurora’s feature an improved ASW electronics suite similar to that installed on the U.S. Navy’s S-3 Viking, a carrier-based ASW/patrol aircraft.
> 
> Canada’s CP-140s flew around 500 sorties in the Persian Gulf during the post-9/11 period, in support of U.S. operations in the region. They have also been used on anti-drug missions for NORAD and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
> 
> Two units fly the CP-140: the 19 Wing at Comox, British Columbia, and the 14 Wing at Greenwood, Nova Scotia. Typical crews include two pilots, a flight engineer, 4 navigators and three sensor operators.



(1)  Unfortunately, i WISH we were in the final phase of modernization  :  The new radar is part of AIMP Block III.  Block IV and ASLEP ( which is still awaiting aproval and funding) remain to be done.

(2)  The new radar started developement long before we started taking on an overland role. it will be a giant leap forward compared to the current APS-506.


----------



## Zoomie

Looks like AIMP just got canned in its totality.  

Send your extra wool socks to your local (MP) Sqn - they're going to need the extra warmth for all those Arctic Sov Patrols.


----------



## aesop081

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Looks like AIMP just got canned in its totality.



????????


----------



## flames9

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> ????????



Think he is refering to this:
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=22fbb1c1-2162-4a26-b721-f153a000e36e


----------



## aesop081

The loss of 6 CP-140s has been talked about for the last 2 years.....as a means of paying for ASLEP


----------



## Zoomie

That same article also mentions the cancellation outright of the $900MCAD AIMP project.

It goes on to further mention that UAVs out of Comox and Greenwood would take over the West/East coast patrols, leaving the CP-140 for Arctic patrols.

I tried to call you at work dude...


----------



## aesop081

Zoomie said:
			
		

> That same article also mentions the cancellation outright of the $900MCAD AIMP project.
> 
> It goes on to further mention that UAVs out of Comox and Greenwood would take over the West/East coast patrols, leaving the CP-140 for Arctic patrols.
> 
> I tried to call you at work dude...



I'm not at work...call me at home

AIMP block I is already flying.....

AIMP Block II is in progress.....the new FFS is up in Greenwood.....The EO/IR that we now have was originaly part of BLOCK III


----------



## JackD

Now I am right, I assume, that the Aurora aircraft are used in coordinating air/sea rescue as well as a myriad of other "on-site' tasks aren't I? So how can this be done by means of drones? Surely sovereignty patrols/ monitoring can be done by drones to a large extent - does the article have it all backwards, or do the individuals who make the decisions have it all backwards?


----------



## Northernguardian

Don't believe what you read in the papers. The MSM in Canada is famously ignorant of military matters. Only a few journalists can write anything sensible. Look at the ridiculous article by Jack Knox in the Times Colonist today for an example.

ASLEP is not going to be funded by cutting the fleet, and we are not cancelling AIMP.  

UAV's are useful, but can't replace the CP140. We'll see a replacement aircraft eventually....


----------



## hank011

Losing Auroras wouldnt be a total loss. Paying IMP and Raytheon to "dumb down" technology to work with 1960's obsolete garbage because we can only afford to pay for it "incrementally" has cost millions more than replacing the systems all at once. Contractors are making a mint because we are putting Navigators and AESOP's in engineering positions to advise on tendering of contracts. We also left it too long to be jamming Core 2 Duo processors into an X86 case. This thing still runs a thermal dot matrix printer for gods sake(its in Janes)
All the pods and radios and radar you can bolt onto the Pontiac Parisienne of the Air force world aint gonna give you a new plane. 
Besides, the Arcturus' are 3 of the six(which was planned anyways). The US navy is retiring their P3's and they are newer.
I'd send them to the sandbox in a second, who bases a surveilance aircraft that can fly for thousands of miles, behind enemy lines(except us canadians). Wouldnt be long before one got hit and the Kandahar based Aurora theory would look as dumb as it sounds.


----------



## x-zipperhead

hank011 said:
			
		

> .Paying IMP and Raytheon to "dumb down" technology to work with 1960's obsolete garbage because we can only afford to pay for it "incrementally" has cost millions more than replacing the systems all at once. .


Nobody would argue that an outright upgrade would have been better than an incremental upgrade but at the time it was started it really was that or nothing.  It's not like $ was raining down from Ottawa.



			
				hank011 said:
			
		

> Contractors are making a mint because we are putting Navigators and AESOP's in engineering positions to advise on tendering of contracts.


Can you suggest who might be better to advise then the end users?



			
				hank011 said:
			
		

> All the pods and radios and radar you can bolt onto the Pontiac Parisienne of the Air force world aint gonna give you a new plane.



No, it gives your present plane improved capability.  The Aurora is an excellent platform the just happens to be getting old.  ASLEP *was* supposed to keep the plane in the air much longer.   



			
				hank011 said:
			
		

> I'd send them to the sandbox in a second, who bases a surveilance aircraft that can fly for thousands of miles, behind enemy lines(except us canadians). Wouldnt be long before one got hit and the Kandahar based Aurora theory would look as dumb as it sounds.



You are making many assumptions.  You really appear to know just enough to be firing from the hip here.  The Americans and Aussie's have been using the P-3  and Brits the Nimrod in Afgan and Iraq to much success.  I'm not going to get into the Aurora's capabilities in this kind of an environment or what some of the potential plans were on this forum for OPSEC reasons, but I am curious what you base you opinions on?  Again, it helps to know who you are talking to and your profile is blank.


----------



## hank011

x-zipperhead said:
			
		

> Can you suggest who might be better to advise then the end users?


Hmmm, My grandma has a telephone but I wouldnt ask her to design one. Try an engineer, AERE, CELE, someone with comms experience or radar experience or systems integration experience. Contractors(engineers to boot) were given plans and CFTO's from the original Aurora and told to "meet the specs" and then sat down with a room full of pilots and navigators to consult on the installation. It was horrible to watch but hey, its not my money. The contractors ran into simple run of the mill problems such as what another component's function was within a system. One Nav next to me actually LIED because he didnt want to look dumb. Every time there was questions about specific systems they would flail around in the hopes that someone could come up with an answer. So far, its amazing that things have gone this far. The peacemeal way it has been done with different bidders for different components within the same system has compounded the problems it was supposed to fix.
[/quote]
No, it gives your present plane improved capability.  The Aurora is an excellent platform the just happens to be getting old.  ASLEP *was* supposed to keep the plane in the air much longer. 
[/quote] 
True, make the best of what we have. I would agree with that.
[/quote]
Again, it helps to know who you are talking to and your profile is blank.
[/quote]
Its blank for a reason, there are guys on this forum who phone you at your desk to threaten you if you dont agree with their opinion.


----------



## TAS278

It has been a very long time since my last post, I found the forums... well you know. 

Anywho, on this interesting topic that has kinda branched off, into what I am sure is on everyones mind, is a reality that we may very well face. We can all be cynical about it but I believe that the forces is changing everywhere. That in its "totality" we have a new mission, a different goal. To those that say Aurora's designed as relay/coordinator's... ASW mean anything to you? The Aurora is a formidable aircraft that has had a long life. With some of these canceled improvements her life may not last as long as we had all hoped. There are  things available to those that question the future in a more private fashion, if those people wish to dig for it. The AIMP have been changed, the are being "modernized" lets say to allow for our changing goals. 

I for one am a huge Aurora supporter who knows first had of her capabilities of not only her Airframe but her crews. If one day they cease to exist it will be a sad and tragic loss but hopefully it will also be a step into the future. 

I implore those though that don't think an Aurora is capable of OLS to take a look at the Airframes that are there now. Maybe then you will see why some in the community feel it is a naturally step for the plane.

Well that is all for now. 

Cheers
Tas


----------



## x-zipperhead

Hank, in rereading your original post I realized I missed one very important word in something I quoted you on and replied;



			
				hank011 said:
			
		

> Contractors are making a mint because we are putting Navigators and AESOP's in engineering  positions to advise on tendering of contracts.



I missed that key word.  I absolutely agree that they shouldn't be in engineering positions.  I didn't think there were any Nav's or AES Op's in engineering positions.   There are indeed AERE officers involved in AIMP and the companies have their own engineers. What I meant in my original question was why wouldn't you have the end user's of the equipment involved in the projects.  Why would you not have a Nav or AES Op providing input about what the new equipment should be able to.  They don't have to be experts in how to integrate it but they are the guys to tell you what they need.  That being said, I realize the complications of trying to make the latest gadgets work with an old system, but I don't think it is fair to accuse  Nav's and AES Op's of masquerading as engineers and blame them for the challenges.



			
				hank011 said:
			
		

> Hmmm, My grandma has a telephone but I wouldnt ask her to design one. Try an engineer, AERE, CELE, someone with comms experience or radar experience or systems integration experience.



Agreed.   I  know of AERE's involved with AIMP.  They have the system integration and technical experience.  The Nav's and AES Op's would be the one's with the comm's and Radar, etc experience.  Both are important to the process.



			
				hank011 said:
			
		

> Its blank for a reason, there are guys on this forum who phone you at your desk to threaten you if you don't agree with their opinion.



I didn't mean to  provide every last detail.  You can provide some general stuff about yourself without giving you work local and home address ;D
Tell me you didn't actually have someone from this forum threaten you.


----------



## hank011

Yep, a SNCO at a certain Comms Regiment in Ontario figured out my name and called my unit complaining about me. When he got me he threatened to take me out back of the mess cause I didnt think the same as him...I deleted my info the next day.
I may not be all knowing but my opinions are changeable by discussion...not by violence.


----------



## Good2Golf

hank011 said:
			
		

> Yep, a SNCO at a certain Comms Regiment in Ontario figured out my name and called my unit complaining about me. When he got me he threatened to take me out back of the mess cause I didnt think the same as him...I deleted my info the next day.
> I may not be all knowing but my opinions are changeable by discussion...not by violence.




...sad

*shakes head*


G2G


----------



## x-zipperhead

hank011 said:
			
		

> Yep, a SNCO at a certain Comms Regiment in Ontario figured out my name and called my unit complaining about me. When he got me he threatened to take me out back of the mess cause I didnt think the same as him...I deleted my info the next day.
> I may not be all knowing but my opinions are changeable by discussion...not by violence.



Yep, that is pretty pathetic.  After that kind of experience I can see why you keep it blank.


----------



## NCRCrow

Back to the Aurora in Afghanistan, would the threat of a MANPAD/AAA to a full Aurora crew not necessitate the use of the PRED -B (ALIX) instead to facilitate an ISR role.

The CP-140 would need a comprehensive self-defense suite. (ALR-56M?)

Maybe my friend AESOP friend (Cdn Aviator) can tell me the last time a Aurora had a weapon on its hardpoint. If he is  not to busy having a beer at the AESOPLounge.  ;D

Any takers for a TECHELINT (Sige 2810) in CFNOS Halifax Mar 19-09 Apr 07, check the DIN.  Cdn Aviator??


----------



## x-zipperhead

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> Back to the Aurora in Afghanistan, would the threat of a MANPAD/AAA to a full Aurora crew not necessitate the use of the PRED -B (ALIX) instead to facilitate an ISR role.



UAV'c certainly are a valuable ISR tool.  The Aurora is another tool in the tool box.  The Aurora has the advantage of having the increased spatial and situational awareness and adaptiveness that the crew provides.   You'd be surprised how much  the MK I  eyeball provides.  A UAV is limited to where it's sensors are looking and there is no way an operator on the ground can build the same situational awareness as a crew in the air.  You are correct that the crew is at risk (just as everyone accepts an acceptable level of risk to accomplish a mission) but those risks can mitigated a number of ways.  I don't think it would be appropriate to discuss the threat assessments and our ways of mitigating those threats via these means.  Rest assured we would not be blowing in somewhere accepting an unacceptable level of risk.






			
				HFXCrow said:
			
		

> Maybe my friend AESOP friend (Cdn Aviator) can tell me the last time a Aurora had a weapon on its hardpoint. If he is  not to busy having a beer at the AESOPLounge.  ;D



I know this was not directed to me, but I would point out that it is common knowledge that the Aurora has a bomb bay that doesn't necessarily have to be filled with MK-46 Torpedoes


----------



## aesop081

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> Back to the Aurora in Afghanistan, would the threat of a MANPAD/AAA to a full Aurora crew not necessitate the use of the PRED -B (ALIX) instead to facilitate an ISR role.
> 
> The CP-140 would need a comprehensive self-defense suite. (ALR-56M?)



You should know better than to ask.



> Maybe my friend AESOP friend (Cdn Aviator) can tell me the last time a Aurora had a weapon on its hardpoint. If he is  not to busy having a beer at the AESOPLounge.  ;D



i wouldnt know.  Far too busy having beers in North Island



> Any takers for a TECHELINT (Sige 2810) in CFNOS Halifax Mar 19-09 Apr 07, check the DIN.  Cdn Aviator??



No thanks.


----------



## hank011

I dont think we can discuss that here...but for giggles, I would suggest that between Hfx Gwood and Comox we have too many hangar queens to support it. But it must look awesome on paper.


----------

