# CP-140A Arcturus conversion ?



## aesop081 (27 Aug 2008)

I know that there is no plans to keep the Arcturus on strengh. The 2 remaining ones are the lowest time airframes in the 140 / 140A fleet.

They have alot of life left into them so why not use them for something productive ?

The way i see it, the CF has a deficiency in ELINT gathering assests to suport operations. So why not modify the CP-140A Arcturus into an airborne ELINT platforme like the EP-3E ?


----------



## bartbandyrfc (27 Aug 2008)

Although the Arcturus are the lowest time airframes in the fleet, the aircraft are amongst the highest cycle airframes in the history of P-3 aviation. Cycles being takeoffs and landings and pressurize/unpressurize.  ELINT and COMINT are valuable roles, but my feeling is UAVs can do this better. Better to use them for traditional LRPA roles.

I think we should keep the Arcturi, but the engineers, the programme management folks, and the bureaucrats say we can't afford them.  Wag the dog.

BB


----------



## aesop081 (27 Aug 2008)

bartbandyrfc said:
			
		

> Although the Arcturus are the lowest time airframes in the fleet, the aircraft are amongst the highest cycle airframes in the history of P-3 aviation.



I'm aware of what cycles are but i didnt realize they had so much of them put on.




> Better to use them for traditional LRPA roles.



They are limited in that capacity.



> I think we should keep the Arcturi, but the engineers, the programme management folks, and the bureaucrats say we can't afford them.  Wag the dog.



What about block 2-ing them up front for use by 404 as pilot trainers ?


----------



## cp140tech (27 Aug 2008)

120 and 121 would be trapped in that ppf circuit all friggin' day.... up for 3 hours, down for an EAB, rinse and repeat.   :-\


----------



## bartbandyrfc (27 Aug 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> What about block 2-ing them up front for use by 404 as pilot trainers ?



We could do that, provided the takeoffs and landings are restricted. Apparently they are gone starting April 09 - no discussion.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Aug 2008)

mr peabody said:
			
		

> 120 and 121 would be trapped in that ppf circuit all friggin' day.... up for 3 hours, down for an EAB, rinse and repeat.   :-\



We do that with the Auroras now so no big difference but theres more to PPFs than just beating the snot out of the pattern.



			
				bartbandyrfc said:
			
		

> We could do that, provided the takeoffs and landings are restricted. Apparently they are gone starting April 09 - no discussion.



Yeah. Even restricted though, it would be a nice compliment to the FFS and would save the wear & tear on the CP-140.


----------



## FoverF (28 Aug 2008)

I'll weigh-in with my €0.02 

I think we should mothball them. Properly, no bull, de-activate, rinse, wrap, and store them. 

If a real, comprehensive, frame-up overhaul and up-grade is in the cards for the Aurora (and I'm talking about a 10+ year time-line here), then those 2 extra, low-time airframes will be worth their weight in solid gold. 

Even if we never do get around to doing a serious frame-up upgrade, there will be no shortage of other Orion users who would sell out their own grandmothers to get extra airframes that aren't on death's door. There are 18 other users of the P-3, many of them with limited fleet numbers, and you can be certain that some of them are going to be doing comprehensive upgrades. 

I expect that the market value of flyable P-3s is only going to increase with time. 

I have no idea what the current plan is, but I expect (fear) it probably involves leaving them to rust in the open in Mountainview...?


----------



## bartbandyrfc (28 Aug 2008)

One (119) is already a maintenance trainer in Greenwood.  One will likely be used the same way in Comox.  I don't knw what will happen with the third irframe, but I expect it will be sold.

BB


----------



## aesop081 (28 Aug 2008)

bartbandyrfc said:
			
		

> One (119) is already a maintenance trainer in Greenwood.



That was one of the best decisions done in recent years.


----------



## bartbandyrfc (29 Aug 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> That was one of the best decisions done in recent years.



I have to agree.  If it had to come off the flight-line, this is probably the best use of the airframe


----------

