# P-8 Poseidon



## jimderfuhrer

The Canadian government planing acquired some new fast patrol/electronic warfare and anti-submarines system ,and one of the possibility is the new P-8 Poseidon (Introduced in 2012). The P-8 Poseidon isn't yet ready in 2009 planing his first flight and will be delivred in U.S forces in 2012. But the first detail of this aircraft are awesome little comparison ( theory )

P-8:
- Max speed : 907 km/h
- Cruise speed: 815 km/h
- Maximum load : 85,370 kg
- Armement : Joint missiles, Mines and Torpedoes  (Unofficial)

P-3 (CP-140):
- Max speed : 750 km/h
- Cruise speed : 610 km/h
- Maximum load : 64,400 kg
- Armement :   
Mk 46 Mod V torpedoes, signal chargers, smoke markers, illumination flares
air-to-surface missiles or conventional bombs can be fitted after a retrofit.
Sonobuoys, Radar, Electro-Optical/Infrared (EO/IR) suite, Magnetic anomaly detector (MAD), Electronic Support Measures (ESM), fixed 70 mm camera, hand-held digital camera, gyro-stabilized binoculars.

But isn't for today ,Canada in 1998 modernized his fleet for electronic warfare , so they still in Canadian fleet for long times (retired in 2012-2015).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I would be more interested in loitre time..how long the MPA can stay on task.


----------



## Astrodog

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't turbofans inherently less efficient at low altitudes, where a good chunk of the MP mission takes places? Curious as to how that plays into the P-8.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Astrodog said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't turbofans inherently less efficient at low altitudes, where a good chunk of the MP mission takes places? Curious as to how that plays into the P-8.



Well hopefully our experts will be along to correct our errors.


----------



## aesop081

Astrodog said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't turbofans inherently less efficient at low altitudes, where a good chunk of the MP mission takes places? Curious as to how that plays into the P-8.



Concept of operations for the P-8 is a departure from what is being done now.


----------



## midget-boyd91

I'm wondering about the hangars in Comox and Greenwood. Would they be big enough for these birds, or would new hangars have to be an added cost?

Midget


----------



## Long in the tooth

Interesting, the Air Force wanted turbo props but when the specifications went for bid the Poseiden met them.  Unintended consequences.  Just like in the legal system - don't ask the question unless you already know the answer.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

One of the companies just released a glider anti-sub torpedo, with a launch to target range of 10 miles, which might help reduce low flying bit for ASW. However that does not resolve the issue of finding the target in the first place. Not to mention low flying and target ID for sovereignty, fisheries and pollution patrols is a very big part of what the Aurora does when not hunting for subs.


----------



## ammocat

I know nothing about ASW, however the Fish Hank (Mk 54 torpedo fitted with the Longshot wing adapter) seems like a good idea and has some advantages, less aircraft fuel consumption, airframe stress, and protection from anti-aircraft weapons systems. Being able to deploy a weapon system from a higher altitude would be a benefit, but with the increase in altitude would the be any negative effects on accurate target acquisition?

It is difficult to find specific information on the torpedoes, the tests were conducted on a Mk 54 and I cannot find anything that would indicate that the Longshot can be adapted to the Mk 46 (also can't find anything that says it can't). An upgrade in torpedoes may be required if this aircraft comes into service and tactics are changed to allow for high altitude drops.


----------



## Zoomie

uncle-midget-boyd said:
			
		

> I'm wondering about the hangars in Comox and Greenwood.



The CP-140 Hangars in YQQ are long past due to be replaced. A non-event anyways, we won't be getting any new MPAs in the next quarter century.


----------



## DerKaiser

The P-8 isn't the first who use the Jet engine , the british airforces/navy use since 1969 a jet engine for anti-submarines called "MRA4 Nimrod" is a very cheap aircraft comparate the new version of the CP-140 (modernized in 1998) but still a jet engine. Many another veriant :
- KHI ( Kawasaki)  P-X  Project(Japan)
- MRA4 Nimrod (U.K)
- Boeing P-8A Poseidon Project (U.S.A)
- EADS  MPA320 / MPA319 (Germany)


----------



## aesop081

DerKaiser said:
			
		

> the british airforces/navy use since 1969 a jet engine for anti-submarines called "MRA4 Nimrod"



They have not been using the MRA4 since 1969. In fact, the MRA4 has yet to reach operational service. The current operational model is the Nimrod MR.2


I dont care if you gave yourself a new name.........the facts please.


----------



## DerKaiser

Whoops you have right , but they still used a jet engine since 1969.


----------



## aesop081

DerKaiser said:
			
		

> Whoops you have right , but they still used a jet engine since 1969.



Anyways, i'm still waiting for you to  tell me about the CP-140 and what it can do.


----------



## DerKaiser

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Anyways, i'm still waiting for you to  tell me about the CP-140 and what it can do.



What do you mean?


----------



## aesop081

DerKaiser said:
			
		

> What do you mean?



You posted this :

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/69452/post-763037.html#msg763037

So i later on asked you to tell me about the CP-140

I'm also waiting for you to provide proof that HMCS Chicoutimi sank


----------



## belka

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I'm also waiting for you to provide proof that HMCS Chicoutimi sank



Everyone knows that HMCS Chicoutimi is at the bottom of Lake Winnipeg.

Don't see how the P-8's engines being turbofans have anything to do with low-level flight.


----------



## dimsum

NINJA said:
			
		

> Don't see how the P-8's engines being turbofans have anything to do with low-level flight.



Up to a certain altitude and speed, turbofans are actually less efficient than props.


----------



## belka

I would think that turbofans and turboshafts have practically the same efficiency range just the torque output is higher with the turboshafts at lower altitudes. Unless we are talking about different things here.


----------



## dimsum

Wait, Turbofans and Turboshafts (as in helicopters) or Turbofans and Turboprops (as in the Auroras)?  If you mean turboprops, then what I say holds.  If not, never mind


----------



## aesop081

NINJA said:
			
		

> Don't see how the P-8's engines being turbofans have anything to do with low-level flight.



Do a range comparaison for the Hornet between a HI-HI-HI mission profile and a LO-LO-LO ( or even HI-LO-HI) mission profile and you will see what low altitude does to a jet.


----------



## belka

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Do a range comparaison for the Hornet between a HI-HI-HI mission profile and a LO-LO-LO ( or even HI-LO-HI) mission profile and you will see what low altitude does to a jet.



Yes, I'm aware that the Hornet will be more efficient at higher altitudes. I think I had efficiency and power output confused here. Then I agree that at lower altitudes a turbofan consumes more fuel than a turboprop.


----------



## thunderchild

I have 2 questions regarding high bypass turbofans at low altitude if anybody could help me out I'd appreciate it,
1. My understanding is that jet engines are more efficient at altitude due to the out side air being colder than it may be at sea level. If this is correct then would the cold air in the arctic have the same affect on fuel consumption and engine performance at lower altitudes?
2. How does corrosion from salt water mist affect engine life?


----------



## aesop081

thunderchild said:
			
		

> I have 2 questions regarding high bypass turbofans at low altitude if anybody could help me out I'd appreciate it,
> 1. My understanding is that jet engines are more efficient at altitude due to the out side air being colder than it may be at sea level. If this is correct then would the cold air in the arctic have the same affect on fuel consumption and engine performance at lower altitudes?



You are not grasping the concept of use of the P-8. The days of spending 10 hours on station below 1000 feet are over.



> 2. How does corrosion from salt water mist affect engine life?



We have agressive corosion control programs to minimize this.


----------



## cp140tech

We basically just drive soap and water through the engines as they windmill and then run them for a few minutes to dry them out.  We're pretty anal with our corrosion inspections.  It's not the most exciting work but it really pays off.


----------



## thunderchild

My mistake, I understood that most ASW was between 1000-2000 feet.  Thanks.


----------



## aesop081

thunderchild said:
			
		

> My mistake, I understood that most ASW was between 1000-2000 feet.  Thanks.



 :

As of right now, with a P-3 type airframe, yes ( relatively speaking). The P-8 will be a departure from that.


----------



## SteveB

Thunderchild, as to your first question, no, turbofans are not more efficient at altitude due to the cold air.  The gain in efficiency is because they are operating closer to their design point.  

To simplify somewhat, these engines are at their most efficient when operating at their highest combustion temperatures and core turbine speeds.  They are so powerful, that the only time they can approach this without overspeeding the airframe is in a climb or, in the thin air at high altitude.  You can think of a turbine as an unturbocharged reciprocating engine.  The lower the mass of air it takes in, the less power it can produce.  The air at 40,000 ft is about one fifth as dense as that at sea level.  For example, the max power output of the CFM56-7b26K at sea level is 26,000 lbs of thrust, and at that, it is limited by the allowable power in the fan.   As the engine climbs, the exhaust gas temperature will rise and at some point the temp reaches it's max allowable value and becomes the limiting factor instead of the fan.  As the engine climbs further, power drops off.  At the 737's max operating altitude of 41,000 ft, it's engines are making maybe a quarter of what they did at take-off but, they still have enough power to overspeed the airframe in level flight.  

The other side to the thin air is the reduced resistance it poses to the airplane's passage.  This resistance, called drag, is proportional to the density of the air and is therefore greatly reduced at altitude.  This is all pretty basic and simplified, there are several more factors at play here but, simply, no, cold arctic air would offer no benefit to fuel consumption.  

On point 2, it is common practice for all 737 operators to perform compressor washes on a regular basis.  It would be unusual for the airforce not to perform this maintenance regardless of salt water ingestion, further, the equipment for this would be an off the shelf purchase.

I can't comment on any of the operational procedures Canadian Aviator has already addressed.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## thunderchild

Thanks SteveB, I hadn't taken air density into account.


----------



## aesop081

thunderchild said:
			
		

> I hadn't taken air density into account.



....amongst other things you havent taken into account because you simply just dont know.


----------



## MarkOttawa

The CF can hope:

Navy to begin Initial Production of P-8A
http://www.navair.navy.mil/NewsReleases/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.view&id=4481

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. - The U.S. Navy announced today the award of a $1.6 billion contract to Boeing for P-8A Poseidon aircraft Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) of six aircraft.

This first LRIP contract also includes spares, logistics and training devices. Production of the first LRIP aircraft will begin this summer at Boeing’s Renton, Wash. facility.

“In 2004, the U.S. Navy and the Boeing Company made a commitment to deliver the next generation maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft to support a 2013 Initial Operational Capability (IOC),” said Capt. Mike Moran, PMA 290 Program Manager. “This contract and these aircraft keep that commitment on track.”

Three of the six flight test aircraft, built as part of the System Development and Demonstration contract awarded to Boeing in 2004, are in various stages of testing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. The Integrated Test Team has conducted sonobuoy releases and counter measures deployments.

Recently, one of two static test planes completed full scale testing on the P-8A airframe. The first static test aircraft underwent 154 different tests with no failure of the primary structure. The second aircraft will begin fatigue testing this year.

The U.S. Navy plans to purchase 117 production P-8A aircraft to replace its P-3 Fleet. IOC is planned for 2013 at NAS Jacksonville, Fla.







Plus:

P-8i: India’s Navy Picks Its Future High-End Maritime Patrol Aircraft   
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/indias-navy-holding-maritime-patrol-aircraft-competition-updated-01991/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

1.6 B$ for six. Wow! They look like a steal compared to a F-35


----------



## Oh No a Canadian

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> 1.6 B$ for six. Wow! They look like a steal compared to a F-35


Full rate production will be cheaper.


----------



## PuckChaser

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> The CF can hope:



I hope you kick up a fuss if we sole-source these like you're doing with the F-35. I'm sure the P8 is a superior platform to anything out there currently, but we would want to waste a lot of money to double check that fact, right?


----------



## MarkOttawa

PuckChaser: I had no objection to sole-sourcing the Jerc or the C-17.  No conceivable competitors.  The P-8 may be in the same situation, but there is a long time before a formal Aurora replacement process gets going and we'll need to see what the situation is then and what is available (UAVS, satellite, civilian patrol, other aircraft).

It is thought-provoking that the RAF has got entirely out of the maritime patrol business:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/81956/post-993951.html#msg993951

Also interesting that the Air Force is touting the F-35 as being useful for sneaking up on and identifying ships.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

If we pick the P8 without competition then it will be the exact same scenario as the F-35, the US ran a competition and we picked the winner. Except with the P-8, we're not multi-millions into the project with numerous contracts for our aerospace industry in the balance.


----------



## Haletown

Hold a competition.  Only Boeing will show up because they have the only aircraft that can close to meeting a realistic spec doc.

We could do the same for the F35.  Only LM would show up.  There are no other available aircraft that could meet the stealth profiles that we would put in a spec.

A waste of time & money. Then Iggy & Layton & the fools at the Rideau Centre would be complaining about wasting money.

Anyone catch Staples on QP today?  He went on and on about how the F35 was "a bomb truck"

Dumber than a bag of hammers that one.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Also interesting that the Air Force is touting the F-35 as being useful for sneaking up on and identifying ships.



Mark have you ever tracked low flying  fast moving targets at sea?


----------



## aesop081

The P-8 was deemed too expensive. Buying the quantity needed was not possible given the funding envelope available. CP-140 AIMP will extend the aircraft until 2025-ish and the hope is that there will be alternatives to the P-8 by then.



			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> civilian patrol,



I'm not sure how many more times i can explain to *YOU* that no civillian patrol scheme can replace the CP-140........none.


----------



## Zoomie

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I'm lisaleonardonline not sure how many more times i can explain to *YOU* that no civillian patrol scheme can replace the CP-140........none.



Q-400 with hard points?  Is it the ability to drop weapons that makes this not feasible? PAL flies B200's with pretty jammy EO/IR/EW gear.  Anyone can drop a torp - you just need the appropriate laws to back you up. 

Every single trade in the CF can be privatized.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Range and Endurance are what take a Q400 and the B200 out of the picture.

Those airframes might be great for a little country like Denmark or The Netherlands.

Another thing to consider is the Sono load.  There is no way a Q400 or a B200 is going to be able to carry a full sono load and 8 torps.  You would have to sacrifice something, and there wouldn't be any need for torps if you don't have enough sonos to detect and destroy.   ASW doesn't work so well with EO/IR.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

No, not everyone can - drop a torpedo I mean. The "laws" that say so are the international laws of conflicts and they do not allow the use of civilian's to carry out combat missions.

Moreover, there is a security issue (and don't tell us that civilians can be "cleared" - not for this): latest ASW tactics and latest ASW equipment are some of the most carefully guarded secrets of any nation. Heck, when sonobuoys, whose existence is now general knowledge, were first introduced in the fifties and early sixties, seamen in Halifax could be charged for merely uttering the word "jezebel" in public, which could be embarrassing for those unfortunate enough to be picked to recite a reading from the old testament at their church hall  .


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I think Zoomie was being sarcastic...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> PuckChaser: I had no objection to sole-sourcing the Jerc or the C-17.  No conceivable competitors.  The P-8 may be in the same situation, but there is a long time before a formal Aurora replacement process gets going and we'll need to see what the situation is then and what is available (UAVS, satellite, civilian patrol, other aircraft).
> 
> It is thought-provoking that the RAF has got entirely out of the maritime patrol business:
> http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/81956/post-993951.html#msg993951
> 
> Also interesting that the Air Force is touting the F-35 as being useful for sneaking up on and identifying ships.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Yes well I think the UK's new white paper plans on riding other peoples coattails and writing strongly worded letters. The haste to scrap the Nimrods is clearly to ensure no one comes along to reverse their decision anytime soon, which more of a long  term political/social engineering goal  than a military/budget one. I wonder what it would have cost to fly them to the US desert for storage?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Mark have you ever tracked low flying  fast moving targets at sea?



MarkOttawa I am waiting for an answer or a retraction. Maybe a Verbal is warranted to keep you in your own lanes.

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## MarkOttawa

Ex-Dragoon: I was not aware that responses were mandatory, but no of course I have not.   If you are referring to a ship's ability to detect an aircraft stealth naturally would make that much more difficult.  On the other hand maritime patrol (it was the F-35's ability to identify vessels in waters around Canada that has been touted, not attacking ships on a combat mission--my apologies for not making that clear) is not normally considered a core fighter/attack mission and one does wonder about aircraft based at Bagotville and Cold Lake carrying it out.

My point was that trying to help sell a program with such a minor point is rather telling, just as when the Victoria class subs are sold as, amongst other things, wonderful for fisheries patrol functions:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=35ecf942-de27-4a2c-bbd3-d0393f766f01



> ...
> The Victoria Class submarines represent an important strategic asset for Canada. There are currently no plans to replace these submarines," says the note.
> 
> "They perform a wide array of naval roles, including fisheries patrols...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Ex-Dragoon: I was not aware that responses were mandatory, but no of course I have not.   If you are referring to a ship's ability to detect an aircraft stealth naturally would make that much more difficult.  On the other hand maritime patrol (it was the F-35's ability to identify vessels in waters around Canada that has been touted, not attacking ships on a combat mission--my apologies for not making that clear) is not normally considered a core fighter/attack mission and one does wonder about aircraft based at Bagotville and Cold Lake carrying it out.
> 
> My point was that trying to help sell a program with such a minor point is rather telling, just as when the Victoria class subs are sold as, amongst other things, wonderful for fisheries patrol functions:
> http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=35ecf942-de27-4a2c-bbd3-d0393f766f01
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



We use fast air quite a bit in locating and identifying ships. The US Navy has been very helpful in this regard.

You put a lot of "stuff" in these forums with little to back it up case and point above, do you think you are immune to the forum guidelines where you feel you cannot be challenged to back up your claims?

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> MarkOttawa I am waiting for an answer or a retraction. Maybe a Verbal is warranted to keep you in your own lanes.
> 
> Milnet.Ca Staff



Oh for God's sake....how about this for a rule?  That "Stay in your lane" gets buried and whomever trots the old bugger out gets a verbal.

It is the height of obnoxiousness for anyone (and this isn't directed just at you Ex-D) to assume they know everything because they've done something.

And if you want to argue that point, let's look at a historical example:  If we were to follow this moronic proposition, then no one who didn't serve on the Maginot Line would've been allowed to suggest that perhaps it wasn't the best idea.

FrenchArmy.fr - Frenchman circa 1938:  "What you've never been to the Maginot Line....then you know nothing....Stay in your lane!"



Matthew.  :


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Oh for God's sake....how about this for a rule?  That "Stay in your lane" gets buried and whomever trots the old bugger out gets a verbal.
> 
> It is the height of obnoxiousness for anyone (and this isn't directed just at you Ex-D) to assume they know everything because they've done something.
> 
> And if you want to argue that point, let's look at a historical example:  If we were to follow this moronic proposition, then no one who didn't serve on the Maginot Line would've been allowed to suggest that perhaps it wasn't the best idea.
> 
> FrenchArmy.fr - Frenchman circa 1938:  "What you've never been to the Maginot Line....then you know nothing....Stay in your lane!"
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew.



Its really funny Matt how you only tend to comment when I am trying to enforce the rules and guidelines of this site. :


----------



## MarkOttawa

Ex-Dragoon:



> We use fast air quite a bit in locating and identifying ships. The US Navy has been very helpful in this regard.



A role one might well expect from naval aviation but not a role one would think core for terrestrial air force fighters.  I have also heard it said the F-35's advanced ISR capabilities will make it very useful for search and rescue missions in Canada.  Just the reason to buy a certain type of fighter.

By the way, I've never seen the USN, or any other navy, use fisheries work as a rationale for their submarines.  Our governments--both stripes--prefer to justify military equipment to the Canadian public in the least combat-related way possible.  Almost as if they are embarrassed to admit that combat is the key point of most military equipment.  And personnel.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## WingsofFury

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> A role one might well expect from naval aviation but not a role one would think core for terrestrial air force fighters.



Sorry, but you've got to be kidding if you're going to make an assertion that any of our manned aircraft are not under the purvey of the AIR FORCE, and NOT the Navy or the Army.

I suppose then, according to your above, that a maritime patrol aircraft like the Aurora would never be used for land mapping purposes in Afghanistan or to strike land targets while their platform is offshore?

You never cease to amaze me with your grade school analysis of things.


----------



## MarkOttawa

WingsofFury:

Please, I do know which service operates our aircraft.  And that they are used from time to time in ways not central to their main roles (or indeed envisaged when acquired, the Aurora's Afghan employment being indeed a good case in point--also the gunship use of Griffons).  I was referring, regarding fighters, to this by Ex-Dragoon in terms of core service missions:



> We use fast air quite a bit in locating and identifying ships. The US Navy has been very helpful in this regard.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Ex-Dragoon:
> 
> A role one might well expect from naval aviation but not a role one would think core for terrestrial air force fighters.  I have also heard it said the F-35's advanced ISR capabilities will make it very useful for search and rescue missions in Canada.  Just the reason to buy a certain type of fighter.
> 
> By the way, I've never seen the USN, or any other navy, use fisheries work as a rationale for their submarines.  Our governments--both stripes--prefer to justify military equipment to the Canadian public in the least combat-related way possible.  Almost as if they are embarrassed to admit that combat is the key point of most military equipment.  And personnel.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Mark don't confuse the issue....nowhere have I mentioned submarines nor was referring to fisheries...I have been referring to fixed winged assets all along as you know perfectly well...and their ability to find and locate ships as well as their ability to come up undetected if they so chose.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Ex-Dragoon:  And I have been referring to how governments try to sell equipment acquisitions by highlighting peripheral roles and capabilities.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## WingsofFury

Then pray tell why you would use such an assinine phrasing of words as "A role one might well expect from naval aviation but not a role one would think core for terrestrial air force fighters" when you full well know and understand that there is no such thing as a naval aviation component to our navy in any way shape or form?

By your wording you make it sound like all fighters that are land based solely operate over terra firma, a gross inaccuracy and, in my opinion, showing a complete and utter failure of just what roles "fighter" jets play in this country.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Ex-Dragoon:  And I have been referring to how governments try to sell equipment acquisitions by highlighting peripheral roles and capabilities.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Those peripheral roles and capabilities are pretty important for naval commanders the world over...try not to be so dismissive of them.


----------



## WingsofFury

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Ex-Dragoon:  And I have been referring to how governments try to sell equipment acquisitions by highlighting peripheral roles and capabilities.



Tell me why it's a peripheral role and capability - is it because it doesn't appear in the news everyday?

It would be almost as ludacris as making the claim that the sole purvy of "fighter" jets is to intercept Bears over the Arctic.


----------



## MarkOttawa

WingsofFury:  So a major/major mission for our fighters is to identify vessels off Canadian shores in peacetime?  



> ..."A role one might well expect from naval aviation but not a role one would think core for terrestrial air force fighters" when you full well know and understand that there is no such thing as a naval aviation component to our navy in any way shape or form?
> 
> By your wording you make it sound like all fighters that are land based solely operate over terra firma, a gross inaccuracy and, in my opinion, showing a complete and utter failure of just what roles "fighter" jets play in this country.



The key word is "core" for our Air Force; from Ex-Dragoon I drew the (perhaps inaccurate) inference that USN fast air in fact did much of the ship identification for us, when needed to be done by fighters, in waters off Canada.  Clearly ship identification generally is a much more central role for USN fighters than for our Air Force ones--does anyone know how often our Hornets are actually employed doing this?  Not that ours do not fly over water (Cathay Pacific:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/810111--bomb-threat-forces-fighter-jets-to-escort-plane-to-vancouver
First Gulf War:
http://www.richthistle.com/aviation-articles-othermenu-133/74-cf-18-hornets-in-the-gulf-war ).

The point is that the ability of the F-35 to use its stealth in a peacetime maritime patrol role in waters off Canada does not seem to me an important factor to use when justifying its acquisition.  Along with SAR capability.

Other than fighters what other of our aircraft intercept Bears?

Ex-Dragoon:



> Those peripheral roles and capabilities are pretty important for naval commanders the world over...try not to be so dismissive of them.



Fighters identifying vessels in waters off Canada in peacetime, and subs doing fisheries work?  To repeat.

I'm done.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> We use fast air quite a bit in locating and identifying ships. The US Navy has been very helpful in this regard.



Can you point out just how relevant LO is in locating and identifying ships with aircraft?


----------



## FoverF

I would like to see the CP-140's replaced with: 

8 x P-8

6 x RQ-4 

And so, in accordance with site guidelines (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44917.0.html), 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Tasks and roles: *
Would be broadly similar to those carried out by the CP-140s, but there would be a division of taskings into those which require 'longer-endurance-and-more-surveilance' versus 'shorter-endurance-and-more-killing'. In the process we would gain a platform capable of longer-endurance for those missions which require it, and a seperate platform which should be more survivable, and hopefully more effective at killing bad guys (in many if not most scenarios). 

*Aircraft maintenance cycle:*
Maintenance costs tend to be based largely around 2 factors, 1) how much airplane (mass) are you trying to fly? And 2) how many engines are you using?

CP-140 
18 x 77,000lbs = 1,386,000lbs
18 x 4 engines = 72 engines 

P-8 + RQ-4
9 x 138,000lbs + 6 x 8,400lbs = 1,292,000 lbs
9 x 2 engines + 6 x 1 engine =  24 engines

The new fleet would have less airplane, and fewer engines. This is a strong predictor of lower maintenance costs. 

*Aircrew training requirements: *
CP-140         18 x 12 crew = 216 crew

P-8 + RQ-4     9x 9 crew + 6 X 12 'crew' = 153 crew

Obviously these numbers are only for proportional comparison of crew requirements. Difficulties present themselves when counting just how many mission crew an RQ-4 has (different way of doign business entirely) so to be conservative I simply gave it the same number as a CP-140. The long and the short of it is that this new fleet should require fewer crew.

*Number of Airframes Required:*
We can all pretend that this is a consideration, but it isn't. Four C-17s does not meed Canada's strategic lift requirements. But we needed a heavy lift capability, the C-17 was the only viable option, and 4 airframes is what we could afford within the budget allowed. Similarly, Canada needs to be able to kill submarines. There's a VERY short list of planes to do that. We also need to be able to maintain airborne surveillance over all 3 oceans, even if there's shooting going on. I feel that we need more than the 9 + 6 airframes proposed (that's 2 x P-8s per ocean, with one down for maintenance). But we can't afford what's required, so I propose what I think we can afford. 

*Expected lifespan of "new" airframes, compared to expectation of available manufacturer and principal nation support:*
Well, I don't expect the B-737 to go the way of the dodo any time soon. And the RQ-4 is a brand-new aircraft, entering service with the largest air force in the world, our closest neighbor and ally, and a number of our overseas allies as well. One is supported by the world's largest commerical aircraft manufacturer, and the other is a marquee product supported by the world's 4th largest defence company. 

*Requirements and costs to retrain and retool all required maintenance facilities and maintainers.*
The B-737 is one of the most ubiquitously supported aircraft in the world. Almost everything not directly related to the combat systems is available commercial off-the-shelf. Virtually every heavy maintenance outfit in the western world has the required equipment and expertise to maintain it. The RQ-4 is quite a small aircraft, single-engined, and the airframe maintenance requirements are likely to be drawfed by those of either the P-8 or CP-140.

The costs of the retraining and re-tooling for the mission systems is obviously difficult to calculate, with not much public domain information. However, I expect it would be _comparable_ to the costs incurred by re-equipping with any new mission systems, inculding those which would be involved in CP-140 upgrades. 

The salient question here would be the decision whether to use existing ground stations in the USA for the RQ-4s, or to build such facilities in Canada. US facilities would be the cheap option, but Canadian facilities would likely be politically feasable. They could be used to buy votes, since they can be built in Canada, and located anywhere. 

*Infrastructure costs to support new aircraft in all Wing locations:*
a) Both the RQ-4 and P-8 have a wider wing-span than the CP-140 (35.4m and 37.6m, vs 30.4m). Not knowing the details of what hanger/carwash facilities exist at various CFBs, I couldn't say whether this is a factor or not. But dollars to doughnuts says that any facilites where it is a problem are likely to be ancient facilites that will have to be replaced regardless. 

b) Two maintenance programmes will have to be put in place of a single one, both for airframes and mission systems. I suspect this will be largely offset by the factors listed above (fewer airframes, fewer engines, less mass of airplane flying, commonality with the entire world's airline fleet).

c) ground stations for the RQ-4 would be a major question mark. But this could be done on the cheap, by using US facilities, or on the politically expedient, by having Canadian contractors build them in a contested riding in Quebec. 

_*One major consideration that didn't fit into the template above:*_
RQ-4s are a real darn handy airplane. There would probably be lots of demand for them from fisheries, Environment Canada, Transport Canada, et al. Similar long-endurance airframes have been used commercially by the communications sector as temporary repeater stations or cell towers. I think it would be do-able to have maybe 2 or 3 of them as full-time CF assets, while the other 3-4 airframes would be federal gov assets, used by the above agencies on their own dime, or leased to commercial entities. Control of them would resort back the CF in times of national emergency. Whether they were operated by CF or civilian crews would be of less significance, as long as other people are footing the bills. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's already more than I wanted to write, but I just thought I'd comply with the "Let's Buy These Aircraft" sticky, which was put there for just such an occasion.


----------



## fireman1867

This discussion is very academic unless Boeing can provide a better than 30% serviceability rate with P-8 were no better off than right now - just sayin'   

Just tryin to lighten things up here jeez


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Fover F-

And how, precisely, do you propose that we communciate with your RQ-4s?  Did you factor in the cost of developing and launching a uniquely Canadian satellite constellation to give us full time coverage over the entire Canadian AOR to provide up/down link capabilities?  How many Jimmys will we require in excess of our current establishment to make that work (hint: way, way more than you think)?  Or do you propose that we just surf on US DoD Satellites?  Suppsoe we want to do something with our RQ-4s  that the we don't want to tell the Americans about?  How are you going to overcome the requirement for dual redundant comms links for control, when operating in controlled airspace?

I love when people propose UAVs as the panacea and wish away the entire comms piece...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> WingsofFury:  So a major/major mission for our fighters is to identify vessels off Canadian shores in peacetime?
> 
> The key word is "core" for our Air Force; from Ex-Dragoon I drew the (perhaps inaccurate) inference that USN fast air in fact did much of the ship identification for us, when needed to be done by fighters, in waters off Canada.  Clearly ship identification generally is a much more central role for USN fighters than for our Air Force ones--does anyone know how often our Hornets are actually employed doing this?  Not that ours do not fly over water (Cathay Pacific:
> http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/810111--bomb-threat-forces-fighter-jets-to-escort-plane-to-vancouver
> First Gulf War:
> http://www.richthistle.com/aviation-articles-othermenu-133/74-cf-18-hornets-in-the-gulf-war ).
> 
> The point is that the ability of the F-35 to use its stealth in a peacetime maritime patrol role in waters off Canada does not seem to me an important factor to use when justifying its acquisition.  Along with SAR capability.
> 
> Other than fighters what other of our aircraft intercept Bears?
> 
> Ex-Dragoon:
> 
> Fighters identifying vessels in waters off Canada in peacetime, and subs doing fisheries work?  To repeat.
> 
> I'm done.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Its called picture compilation and you use the assets you have available to know whats out there. The sooner you have positive IDs the quicker you can determine who is the threat and who is not.


----------



## aesop081

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Or do you propose that we just surf on US DoD Satellites?



This one is Key......they dont let us on their SATCOM network unless they have to. They usualy dont have to.


----------



## aesop081

FoverF said:
			
		

> Maintenance costs tend to be based largely around 2 factors, 1) how much airplane (mass) are you trying to fly? And 2) how many engines are you using?



With aircraft like the CP-140 and the P-8, you could not be more wrong. Avionics.




> *Aircrew training requirements: *
> 
> CP-140         18 x 12 crew = 216 crew



I have no idea where on Earth you pulled that number from.



> The long and the short of it is that this new fleet should require fewer crew.



But they are based on bogus numbers so...............

*Number of Airframes Required:*


> so I propose what I think we can afford.



The Government determined that what you propose is not affordable. Hence AIMP 3 going ahead.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> The sooner you have positive IDs the quicker you can determine who is the threat and who is not.



How is that affected by LO? And why do you need an F-35 for this instead of any other aircraft?


----------



## WingsofFury

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> How is that affected by LO? And why do you need an F-35 for this instead of any other aircraft?



Right - because foreign ships don't have airborne radar, correct?

And nobody is saying that we need the F-35 specifically for this - it is just one of the roles that it has the ability to perform when necessary.

Case in point - if a Hornet is tasked to a QRA facility in say, Vancouver, and it's out on an intercept, after said intercept, if it was necessary to check out a suspect boat in the vicinity then the Hornet could do it - there's a reason the light is on the side of the plane you know.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> Right - because foreign ships don't have airborne radar, correct?



More or less. There are other larger issues.



> And nobody is saying that we need the F-35 specifically for this - it is just one of the roles that it has the ability to perform when necessary.



Actually, that's how this whole pile-on started. 

Mark said:


> Also interesting that the Air Force is touting the F-35 as being useful for sneaking up on and identifying ships.



and then Ex-Dragoon said:


> Mark have you ever tracked low flying  fast moving targets at sea?



and


> MarkOttawa I am waiting for an answer or a retraction. Maybe a Verbal is warranted to keep you in your own lanes.
> 
> Milnet.Ca Staff



and even more:


> We use fast air quite a bit in locating and identifying ships. The US Navy has been very helpful in this regard.
> 
> You put a lot of "stuff" in these forums with little to back it up case and point above, do you think you are immune to the forum guidelines where you feel you cannot be challenged to back up your claims?
> 
> Milnet.Ca Staff



Mark clearly indiccated that the F-35's LO abilities were being used as a justification for this and got crapped on. I'd like to hear just what Ex-Dragoons thoughts are in how LO affects the ID role. Clearly he has some strong thoughts and in-depth knowledge on the issue or he wouldn't have unloaded on Mark that strongly.



> Case in point - if a Hornet is tasked to a QRA facility in say, Vancouver, and it's out on an intercept, after said intercept, if it was necessary to check out a suspect boat in the vicinity then the Hornet could do it - there's a reason the light is on the side of the plane you know.



Sure. I don't see any reason an F-35 would be any better at that than any other fighter although I'll wait for Ex-Dragoons experienced opinion on this.


----------



## MarkOttawa

As another diversion of sorts, a May 2010 news release from the Canadian Commercial Corporation:

Successful completion of contract for Maritime Patrol Dash 8 planes by Field Aviation and Bombardier (near bottom)
http://www.ccc.ca/eng/abo_newsroom_inTheNews.cfm



> CCC is proud to report that the contract for Maritime Patrol Dash 8 planes has been successfully carried out and closed-out. The project has been active since 2004, when Canadian avionics company, Field Aviation began pursuing a Maritime Patrol requirement with Customs and Border Protection in the United States. As the contract was moving to award, Field Aviation knew exactly where to turn in the Canadian government to ensure a strong contract structure which met the Federal Acquisition Regulations in the United States.
> 
> Using its in-depth knowledge of complex contracting issues and its experience working with the U.S. Government, CCC worked with Field Aviation, Bombardier Special Missions, and an American prime contractor to structure a contract that was satisfactory to all parties for the supply of seven Maritime Patrol Dash 8 planes. The planes were manufactured by Bombardier, with Field Aviation providing engineering modifications to transform the aircraft for maritime patrol usage. This particular contract benefited from CCC?s expertise because the Corporation was able to help the two Canadian suppliers navigate certain complex U.S. DoD requirements. Through its specialised knowledge and contract management resources, CCC was also able to certify that the cost to the U.S. government was fair and reasonable. CCC's involvement kept all parties in agreement throughout contract negotiations, and ensured that a tight and interdependent schedule was met.



From Field Aviation:
http://www.fieldav.com/about/news/detail.aspx?news=1416



> ...
> The primary elements of the surveillance system for CBP's Dash 8 MPAs consist of Raytheon's SeaVue 2032I Search Radar, L-3 Wescam's MX-15 EO/IR turret feeding sensor information to ATK Integrated System's ISADS Mission Management System.
> 
> Field Aviation is internationally recognized for its unique engineered solutions and the modification and conversion of aircraft for special purpose applications. These capabilities have made Field a world leader in the adaptation of commercial aircraft for special mission use - ranging from flight inspection to electronic surveillance and maritime patrol. Maritime patrol aircraft that Field Aviation has modified are today *flying with customers in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ecuador, Iceland, Japan, Sweden and USA* [emphasis added].



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Scott

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> More or less. There are other larger issues.
> 
> Actually, that's how this whole pile-on started.
> 
> Mark clearly indiccated that the F-35's LO abilities were being used as a justification for this and got crapped on. I'd like to hear just what Ex-Dragoons thoughts are in how LO affects the ID role. Clearly he has some strong thoughts and in-depth knowledge on the issue or he wouldn't have unloaded on Mark that strongly.
> 
> Sure. I don't see any reason an F-35 would be any better at that than any other fighter although I'll wait for Ex-Dragoons experienced opinion on this.



You here for discussion or to fling poo? If you've got a problem with "how" the discussion went then perhaps you should use the report to mod feature instead of taking the thread off topic.

Staff


----------



## MarkOttawa

UK maritime patrol thinking post-Nimrod:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/01/24/AW_01_24_2011_p36-284313.xml



> ...
> Program-specific issues on the Defense Ministry’s near-term planning agenda include...whether the planned Scavenger medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aircraft program can take on missions associated with the canceled Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft and R1 Sentinel, which is due to be withdrawn from service once Afghanistan operations wind down.
> 
> The Scavenger system—which is slated to be developed with France under an agreement signed last year—is still in the formative stage. Early plans called for a nominal 2015 in-service date, but 2018 is now seen as more realistic.
> 
> Although the exact mission for Scavenger has not been finalized, Air ­Commo. Malcolm Brecht, director of the Air Staff, notes that with the decision to retire the R1 Sentinel, “we will look to mitigate its loss as part of the Scavenger program.”
> 
> Scavenger also could serve as a gap-filler in the maritime patrol realm, although the British military is already exploring the extent to which some of the roles the Nimrod was to perform can be reallocated. For example, C-130s could be used for search-and-rescue missions, E-3Ds for sea surveillance, and helicopters and ships for anti-submarine warfare...



On the other hand:

Scrapping the RAF's £4bn Nimrod fleet 'risks UK security'
Exclusive: The scrapping of the RAF’s £4 billion fleet of Nimrod surveillance aircraft will create a “massive security gap”, the country’s leading military figures have warned.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8284935/Scrapping-the-RAFs-4bn-Nimrod-fleet-risks-UK-security.html



> In an open letter to the Daily Telegraph,
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/8284273/The-destruction-of-nine-new-Nimrod-jets-is-folly.html
> former defence chiefs from all three services say the decision to destroy nine MRA4 Nimrods to save money is “perverse” and could cause serious long-term damage to the country’s interests.
> 
> The protest over the Government’s decision in last year’s Strategic Defence and Spending Review to destroy what is regarded as a vital part of the country’s defences comes as private demolition contractors hired by the Ministry of Defence began breaking up the aircraft.
> 
> Former military chiefs believe that without the Nimrod’s surveillance technology, the country will be dangerously exposed.
> 
> The planes can detect and sink submarines, drop life rafts to sailors in trouble and play a vital role in drug-smuggling and counter-terrorism operations [the defence chiefs did not mention the last two roles--they said: "Nimrod would have provided long-range maritime and overland reconnaissance, anti-submarine surveillance, air-sea rescue co-ordination and reconnaissance support to the Navy’s Trident submarines.]...
> 
> The use of helicopters and Hercules aircraft to fulfil some of these roles “falls far short” of what the Nimrod is capable of, they warn...
> 
> Maj-Gen Julian Thompson, the former Falklands land forces ommander, condemned the scrapping of the aircraft as “absolutely bonkers”. “There will be no cover for the Trident submarine and it will be a serious loss to the anti-piracy campaign,” he added. The MoD has also been accused of failing to advise ministers of the full cost and impact of Nimrods’ loss. It will cost £200 million to scrap the aircraft and pay compensation to the manufacturers, BAE Systems. The company estimates it would have cost £200 million to make all nine aircraft airworthy.
> 
> The MoD has also not taken into account the extra costs, estimated in millions, required each year for two more Merlin anti-submarine helicopters and a Type 23 frigate that will be needed to escort Trident submarines from Faslane into deep waters.
> 
> Experts also argue that deaths at sea will be inevitable as helicopters cannot operate beyond 200 miles from a coast. In the past, Nimrods have saved lives by dropping life rafts to stranded sailors, as in 1998 when 10 fishermen were saved. Adml Lord West, the former First Sea Lord, called for the Government to at least delay the Nimrods’ destruction until a full security assessment has been made...



The letter also states:



> ...
> Some of Nimrod’s roles in home waters can be covered by frigates, short-range Merlin anti-submarine helicopters or even the C130 Hercules. They fall short, however, of replacing the strategic multi-role contribution of Nimrod. Other countries are actually seeking to reinforce their maritime patrol capacity, with the new *Boeing 737 P8A a strong contender* [emphasis added]...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## WingsofFury

He also stated that it would be a role for naval aviators and not ground based fighters, as if there is an actual difference in Canada between the two.

If you don't see, quite plainly, why a LO aircraft is better at conducting any type of reconnaissaince work then you should do your homework on LO and why it is just one of a myriad number of reasons why the JSF will perform well in that arena, amongst the other reasons being the AESA radar system.

I don't see how as how his use of the term "surprising" makes any sense in his obvious displeasure of the F-35 when, given what we do know of the plane and how it will operate - especially when compared to our Hornets - is quite factual and understood.

As for the Aurora - I love that plane.  I wish I knew more about it, and maybe one day I will.  I'm glad it's going to be around for a while yet.

With regards to using submarines, etc, for drug interdiction, see the below:



> Over the years, the CF has sent long-range patrol aircraft, warships and submarines to help locate, track and intercept illegal activities. Strong surveillance capabilities are vital to the success of this mission because drug runners attempt to slip under the radar.



http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/commun/ml-fe/article-eng.asp?id=6685


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> He also stated that it would be a role for naval aviators and not ground based fighters, as if there is an actual difference in Canada between the two.



I agree. There is no difference in Canada.



> If you don't see, quite plainly, why a LO aircraft is better at conducting any type of reconnaissaince work then you should do your homework on LO and why it is just one of a myriad number of reasons why the JSF will perform well in that arena, amongst the other reasons being the AESA radar system.



Ahhh...I think you might want to check into how radar works. For the specific situation of closing with and identifying a ship, LO won't make a bit of difference. Without getting too technical, EO systems used for visual ID get better at an arithmetic rate (ie if you halve the distance to the ship, your ability to detect the ship doubles) while the radar systems used to detect the aircraft get better at a geometric rate ( if the aircraft halves the distance to the ship, it gets 16 times easier to detect it). You're pretty unlikely to get close enough to actually ID the ship without being detected, even with LO.

You might be able to ID the ship with the AESA, but other aircraft can carry that as well. There's also the issue of being picked up through ESM on the target when you radiate.



> I don't see how as how his use of the term "surprising" makes any sense in his obvious displeasure of the F-35 when, given what we do know of the plane and how it will operate - especially when compared to our Hornets - is quite factual and understood.



I don't see how the F-35 is likely to "surprise" anyone any more than the current Hornets, since LO isn't going to help them and they're unlikely to fly any lower or faster. Have I missed something on the aircraft or how we will operate it?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Just for clarification:


> Can you point out just how relevant LO is in locating and identifying ships with aircraft?"



Can you please show me where I even brought up LO. If an a/c is in the area and they are willing we will definitely asked if they can identify an unknown surface contact. I brought up the US Navy because on deployment they have been very forth coming with helping us out.



> "How is that affected by LO? And why do you need an F-35 for this instead of any other aircraft?"



Again where have I in particular mentioned using the F35?



> Mark have you ever tracked low flying  fast moving targets at sea?


Was asked the emphasize how hard it is to detect something low and fast coming in...does not matter if its Stealth or a lear, you may miss it.



> MarkOttawa I am waiting for an answer or a retraction. Maybe a Verbal is warranted to keep you in your own lanes.


Mark has a habit of posting items from his blog (and elsewhere) and not backing up a lot of his points. We (DS) have had complaints regarding this, hence he was challenged. By the forum guidelines I was doing what any Mod would do.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> Can you please show me where I even brought up LO.



You jumped on Mark as soon as he brought up the Air Force "touting the F-35 as being useful for sneaking up on and identifying ships" as a justification for buying the F-35. The main difference between the F-35 and it's competitors is LO. That's been mentioned many times here. 



> Again where have I in particular mentioned using the F35?



Again, you jumped on Mark as soon as he brought up the F-35. Nobody mentioned any other type of fighter.



> Was asked the emphasize how hard it is to detect something low and fast coming in...does not matter if its Stealth or a lear, you may miss it.



So if it doesn't matter if it's Stealth or Lear, there's no point in squashing the guy for mentioning the F-35, no?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I explained it...if you don't like it well thats your problem....not mine. I am done with you.


----------



## aesop081

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Q-400 with hard points?



And what would you put on those hard points ? Theres a reason our torps are in a heat-controlled weapons bay. Arming an ATR-72 might work for the Chilean Navy but they dont have to operate in sub...sub...sub zero weather.



> Every single trade in the CF can be privatized.



Of course. But that is irrelevant to what i said. Mark (and others) seem to think that flying over the ocean and identifying merchant vessels is the only thing the Aurora does......hence why "civillian patrol" is the common cry of the ignorant.


----------



## Loachman

WingsofFury said:
			
		

> there's a reason the light is on the side of the plane you know.



Difference of speed between ship and CF18 + altitude at which the bomber pilot would have to operate to shine a light sideways at a ship + dark (or one wouldn't need a light) = I don't think so.

Flying formation on another aircraft (the "reason the light is on the side of the plane") at several thousand feet is a lot more relaxing than flying formation on a ship at zero feet.

I'm not an F18 pilot (thankfully - the wings don't turn and that's just not right), but I'd rather give a JTAC on the ground the ability to drop the bombs off of my aircraft by remote control than try that stunt.


----------



## Green On!

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Fover F-
> 
> And how, precisely, do you propose that we communciate with your RQ-4s?  Did you factor in the cost of developing and launching a uniquely Canadian satellite constellation to give us full time coverage over the entire Canadian AOR to provide up/down link capabilities?  How many Jimmys will we require in excess of our current establishment to make that work (hint: way, way more than you think)?  Or do you propose that we just surf on US DoD Satellites?  Suppsoe we want to do something with our RQ-4s  that the we don't want to tell the Americans about?  How are you going to overcome the requirement for dual redundant comms links for control, when operating in controlled airspace?
> 
> I love when people propose UAVs as the panacea and wish away the entire comms piece...



In the case of the RQ-4B, Satcom would not be that tough of a nut to crack as the supply of C/Ku band through commercial means should address our need.  This could handle the majority of our C2 and data requirements, while additional INMARSAT and UHF DAMA access could provide the required C2 links for redundancy.  No real rocket science involved (pun intended ).  

Of course, coverage in the high arctic might be limited, but that is why manned and un-manned platforms are both required, and truly complement each other.  If we need the ability to conduct persistent, long range, broad area ISR over our sovereign territory, in my opinion, a fleet of 4-5 Global Hawks Blk 40s or BAMS would fit the bill nicely, and do it better than anything else currently fielded or in the planning stage.  


Cheers


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Green On!

I'm pretty sure that we know each other.

Look- I will stipulate up front that long range, high endurance UAVs have a place in our inventory and will eventually enter service with the CF.  I'm just not sure that I agree with your position on the availabilty of commercial satellites to meet our control segment needs- I don't thnk that they are always in the right orbits for us, that we can get all of dedicated bandwidth we need at a price that we can live with and that it would be a secure enough set up.  I also think that the support personnel bill (Comm techs, Int Ops, etc) to make this work properly has always been under- estimated.  Finally, not even the US Military has been able to convince the FAA  to allow both UAVs and civil traffic to mix, because they haven't been able to build a compelling safety of flight case.  The case will be eventually built- I just don't think it will happen until around 2020.

Good discussion.


----------



## George Wallace

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> .......  I'm just not sure that I agree with your position on the availabilty of commercial satellites to meet our control segment needs- I don't thnk that they are always in the right orbits for us, that we can get all of dedicated bandwidth we need at a price that we can live with and that it would be a secure enough set up.



Agreed.  Availability of satellites is a concern.  This isn't Hollywood where there is always a 'bird' over the target.   Costs are also very prohibitive.  Did anyone mention the "Proprietary Factor"?  Would the "Owner" (USA) permit full access to the technology.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I also think that the support personnel bill (Comm techs, Int Ops, etc) to make this work properly has always been under- estimated.



Even with manned flight, there is a large support network of Int Ops, Photo Techs, analysts, etc. to take/download the data from the A/C and decipher what was collected.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have been watching Radarsat 1 & 2 data for use in our business, for a swath of data in a resolution useful for us we are looking at $1800 per request last time I looked. for that kind of money there are not many sites in Canada I can't visit personally to carry out an inspection and get better information. It's getting better, but not there yet.

Maybe we can buy some P8's and rent them with crews to cover the UK waters as well?  :nod:


----------



## MarkOttawa

CDN Aviator:



> Mark (and others) seem to think that flying over the ocean and identifying merchant vessels is the only thing the Aurora does......hence why "civillian patrol" is the common cry of the ignorant.



I am not that ignorant.  This is what I think.  The Air Force’s fleet of Aurora maritime patrol aircraft is being reduced from 18 to 10.  *Those aircraft also do considerable non-military work*.  To reduce such demands on them, as the Aurora fleet shrinks, why not expand and centralize the government’s current fleet of civilian maritime patrol aircraft, mainly used for pollution detection and fisheries enforcement?  As far as I can determine there are seven planes, four Bombardiers owned and operated by Transport Canada,
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/backgrounders-b04-m126e-1342.htm
and three King Airs leased by Fisheries and Oceans.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/back-fiche/2009/hq-ac27a-eng.htm

Surely a few more such aircraft would be very helpful for general maritime surveillance, including such roles as law enforcement, migrant detection, vessel identification, and sovereignty patrols in the Arctic.  Transport Canada could well operate such a fleet on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Coast Guard, Environment Canada, CBSA/RCMP, CF as required, and others.

A contract actually worth giving to Bombardier!  After a suitable competition of course.

More on Bombardiers doing that sort of work here:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/80150/post-1013266.html#msg1013266

As for ship identification in waters off Canada in particular, I merely questioned whether whatever the F-35's special capabilities are in that regard should be a serious factor in whether or not we acquire the aircraft.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> And what would you put on those hard points ? Theres a reason our torps are in a heat-controlled weapons bay. Arming an ATR-72 might work for the Chilean Navy but they dont have to operate in sub...sub...sub zero weather.



They're the same fish that a Sea Thing carries, and are in Mk 32 tubes. It gets pretty cold in those tubes, and presumably being strapped to a helo. And the Northern Atlantic/Pacific is normally kinda cold once the fish get dropped in it. 

Although the TI would have a fit if you treated a Mk 48 the same way that people routinely treat a Mk 46, so maybe the helo/skimmer weapons techs have it wrong....



> Of course. But that is irrelevant to what i said. Mark (and others) seem to think that flying over the ocean and identifying merchant vessels is the only thing the Aurora does......hence why "civillian patrol" is the common cry of the ignorant.



Could civilian aircraft take over whatever domestic patrol functions the Arcturus was/is used for?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Drunknsubmrnr-

Cold is only part of the issue (a hypothetical DASH-8 MPA may experience temps as low as -50C on a transit at FL250- I'm pretty sure a Mk46 is not rated to that). The other issue is icing.  I can assure you Sea Kings never fly in icing conditions, so externally weapons never get exposed to that.  In the Canadian AOR, icing can be problem in almost any month of the year.  External hardpoints are not good things in icing conditions.

Generally speaking, it is better to carry your stores internally.  They last longer and work when you need them to, not to mention you eliminate parasite drag.

Civilian patrol aircraft may have their place in the tool box, but the DASH-8 MPA proposal is asinine for Canada.  No version of it has the legs that need.  Bad idea.


----------



## Zoomie

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Surely a few more such aircraft would be very helpful for general maritime surveillance, including such roles as law enforcement, migrant detection, vessel identification, and sovereignty patrols in the Arctic.



I'm all for this - I need a place to go in 8 years when I get my pension.  Beats droning around flying a bus.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> As far as I can determine there are seven planes, four Bombardiers owned and operated by Transport Canada, and three King Airs leased by Fisheries and Oceans.



Didn't one of these bodies just recently ground their aircraft? I thought I caught a tail end of the story on the news awhile back.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Ok thanks. The Mk 32 tubes sometimes get iced up, but I've never heard of any weapons actually fired from them under icing conditions. IIRC ASROC had an anti-icing heater to prevent that sort of thing.

What did the Trackers do? Would that sort of thing be valuable, or is it a solution looking for a problem?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Trackers carried their weapons in a bomb bay as well.


----------



## aesop081

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> They're the same fish that a Sea Thing carries, and are in Mk 32 tubes. It gets pretty cold in those tubes, and presumably being strapped to a helo. And the Northern Atlantic/Pacific is normally kinda cold once the fish get dropped in it.



Its not like i'm new at this, i know my weapons. The CP-140 has a heated bomb bay and theres a reason for it. MPAs take weapons into environments that helos dont. Yes those water are pretty cold, but not like 30k feet is cold......



> Could civilian aircraft take over whatever domestic patrol functions the Arcturus was/is used for?



The Arcturus are gone. We already have a civillian aerial surveillance program. This has to do with an Aurora replacement how ?


----------



## NavyShooter

I just had a little read of this thread, and figured I'd toss in my .02 on the LO side (realizing that we're moving from that to other points of discussion, but hey...)

Anyhow, most targets that would need to be identified at sea would be civilian ships.

Those civilian ships would carry civilian radars, and mostly surface search radars.  Noteable NOT air search radars. 

If we're trying to do a sneak and peek on them, a low/slow flying helo or MPA may actually show up on their surface search radar.  Which means the element of surprise may be lost.

If you send in a Low Observable fighter in to have a peek, it will be far less likely to appear on their surface search radar, and due to the speed, may actually be filtered out.

The other side of that is that if we're sending in aircraft to attempt to ID a possible military contact, which do you think has a higher probability to succeed, AND SURVIVE....an MPA, Helo, or a LO Fighter??

There.  I'll jump back into my lane, but reading 4 pages of infighting got the above idea stewing in my head.  Sorry to re-ignite the potential flames...

NS


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> The Arcturus are gone. We already have a civillian aerial surveillance program. This has to do with an Aurora replacement how ?



I thought we could supplement whatever the Aurora replacement is with something like a civilian operated Arcturus. That way you could concentrate the Aurora replacements on whatever it is that you do that civilians can't. If that's not going to work then I guess we'll need a lot more Aurora replacements.



> If you send in a Low Observable fighter in to have a peek, it will be far less likely to appear on their surface search radar, and due to the speed, may actually be filtered out.



If you send in an LO anything, it's still probably going to be detected before it closes enough to ID the target. LO is irrelevant in this specific situation. There is no sneaking up on the target to identify it.


----------



## aesop081

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> I thought we could supplement whatever the Aurora replacement is with something like a civilian operated Arcturus.



We already have that arrangement. Transport Canada MART and PAL do regular monitoring for the more "civillian enforcement" type missions at home. The 18 CP-140 Auroras handle the military missions and assist OGDs with missions where the 140s capability is the only suitable choice.


----------



## thunderchild

65 F-35's for AD missions, foreign deployment (when necessary), coastal patrols, maintenance and training.  when the wings start cracking from over use and maintenance costs go through the roof what do you plan to do when the TU-160's keep flying through our airspace or there are Oscar ssn's operating  in the Hudson strait? Bit out there I know but is that worth the risk.  We need the P-8, is there a suitable aircraft we could use to supplement it's operations a less cost?  Is this a feasable idea?


----------



## aesop081

thunderchild said:
			
		

> or there are Oscar ssn's operating  in the Hudson strait?



What does that have to do with the F-35 ?

Not a single person said the F-35 could be used to track a submarine.




> We need the P-8,



No, we need a long-range MRPA replacement. Those 2 things are not mutualy inclusive.



> is there a suitable aircraft we could use to supplement it's operations a less cost?  Is this a feasable idea?



Suplement what ? What is it that our LRP fleet does that needs to be supplemented by another aircraft ? What is it thats not being done now that needs an additional aircraft type ?


----------



## Zoomie

I heard we bought too many J-Hercs and they are going to retro-fit a couple for LRPA - /stir


----------



## George Wallace

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> We already have that arrangement. Transport Canada MART and PAL do regular monitoring for the more "civillian enforcement" type missions at home. The 18 CP-140 Auroras handle the military missions and assist OGDs with missions where the 140s capability is the only suitable choice.



Are you sure?  Only last week Transport Canada announced it was selling off its two planes.


----------



## George Wallace

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> If you send in an LO anything, it's still probably going to be detected before it closes enough to ID the target. LO is irrelevant in this specific situation. There is no sneaking up on the target to identify it.



I am not a pilot, nor am I a radar operator, but even I am familiar with how effective "Flying in the Grass" is for attacking aircraft.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> even I am familiar with how effective "Flying in the Grass" is for attacking aircraft.



It is effective. Flying below the radar horizon will get any type of aircraft fairly close without being detected. When they pop over the ships radar horizon, they'll probably be within detection range regardless of their RCS.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

'Probably' and 'Will be' are two very different things. You can either state they absolutely will be detected or you can say they might be. Two very different things, IMHO.


----------



## NavyShooter

Again,

My thought with this was that if you need to ID a Merchie ship, a Helo or MPA (due to low speed and RCS) will likely show up on even a basic Nav Radar, giving them some warning before the flyover.

Using a go-fast (CF-18/F-35) would give minimal warning and likely be filtered out due to speed on most Nav radars.

If you're doing an overflight for ID/INTEL on a warship, then sending in an MPA/HELO is a good way to write a bunch of letters if there is hostile intent.  Sending in an F-18/F-35 is a much more survivable option.

Using an F-35/F-18 for on a merchie would probably result in a no-warning fly-over, with the potential for a "caught red-handed" set of photos.

YMMV, and I'm gonna go hide in my lane again...

NS


----------



## aesop081

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> If you're doing an overflight for ID/INTEL on a warship, then sending in an MPA/HELO is a good way to write a bunch of letters if there is hostile intent.  Sending in an F-18/F-35 is a much more survivable option.



Modern MPA sensors can ID a surface contact well outside of that contact's ability to shoot. Heck, a modern ESM set will tell you who it is without even having to see the ship on visual sensors........overflight not required. SAR/ISAR radar will produce a picture for you good enough for ID at 200NM standoff.........



> Using an F-35/F-18 for on a merchie would probably result in a no-warning fly-over, with the potential for a "caught red-handed" set of photos.



I've caught plenty of people red-handed..........dont need a fighter for that. An MPA has plenty of stand-off sensors that give you the ability you speak of.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> You can either state they absolutely will be detected or you can say they might be. Two very different things, IMHO.



With things like anaprop, radar lobes and blind speeds, a "probable" detection is as good as you'll get. There will always be weird things that can happen to work both ways with radar.


----------



## aesop081

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> This is what I think.  The Air Force’s fleet of Aurora maritime patrol aircraft is being reduced from 18 to 10.  *Those aircraft also do considerable non-military work*.



Sorry Mark but i have to go back to this as well.

"considerable" is an uneducated statement. I know what the Aurora fleet YFR allocation is. I cannot say that the YFR allocation for non-military missions is "considerable". It is not.

Yes, i agree, you are "not that ignorant" but you are ill-equiped to comment as you do not understand / have a clear grasp of basic facts.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> With things like anaprop, radar lobes and blind speeds, a "probable" detection is as good as you'll get. There will always be weird things that can happen to work both ways with radar.



Because I know some people are not familiar with the term:
ANAPROP - anomalous propagation - when radar microwaves are refraction by things like inversions down to the ground, and are then reflected back to the dish - as far as the radar is concerned, something is there, and so it displays it as a return




			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are you sure?  Only last week Transport Canada announced it was selling off its two planes.



Thanks George for the verification


----------



## aesop081

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> as far as the radar is concerned,



Additionaly, there may be range abiguity depending on the radar's specific mode of operation.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Additionaly, there may be range abiguity depending on the radar's specific mode of operation.



Very true but I did not want to further complicate the discussion as the majority are laymen for the most part.


----------



## aesop081

WingsofFury said:
			
		

> If you don't see, quite plainly, why a LO aircraft is better at conducting any type of reconnaissaince work then *you should do your homework * on LO and why it is just one of a myriad number of reasons why the JSF will perform well in that arena, amongst the other reasons being the AESA radar system.



WoF,

I am a maritime aviator and have the Advanced operational EW course, i hope you will agree that i have "done my homework".

LO technology is far from the "be-all-end-all" it is touted to be. Once an F-35 has radiated , its like hanging a big sign that says "here i am". Its range and loiter capability are limited. LO does not mean undetectable.....just like a jammer is only effective until the aircraft gets to the target radar's burn-through range. There is a museum in Belgrade with an exibit you might find interesting.

A non-stealthy MPA can hang around for hours, use a multitude of sensors to gather information and use its weapons to act if required. It can do this well outside a surface contact's ability to do anything about it.


----------



## Fastam

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> WoF,
> 
> I am a maritime aviator and have the Advanced operational EW course, i hope you will agree that i have "done my homework".
> 
> LO technology is far from the "be-all-end-all" it is touted to be. Once an F-35 has radiated , its like hanging a big sign that says "here i am". Its range and loiter capability are limited. LO does not mean undetectable.....just like a jammer is only effective until the aircraft gets to the target radar's burn-through range. There is a museum in Belgrade with an exibit you might find interesting.
> 
> A non-stealthy MPA can hang around for hours, use a multitude of sensors to gather information and use its weapons to act if required. It can do this well outside a surface contact's ability to do anything about it.



Long Time reader here , first post. 

I would like to comment that the F-35 will have an AESA radar that it suposed to be an LPI set.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Probability_of_Intercept_Radar

While I doubt anyone on this forum knows just how hard these new fighter sized AESA's are to detect . Most of the unclassified info I can find on them sugest that it is next to impossible for current generation RWR's to detect. 

From what I understand , the F-35 is suposed to have a system similar to the F-22s ALR-94 passive receiver system. which can detect, classify and aparently target weapons without ever turning on it's radar. 

As well the F35 is suposed to get the DAS.
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35targeting/

Which also could be usefull in identifying maritime contacts.


----------



## George Wallace

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Modern MPA sensors can ID a surface contact well outside of that contact's ability to shoot. Heck, a modern ESM set will tell you who it is without even having to see the ship on visual sensors........overflight not required. SAR/ISAR radar will produce a picture for you good enough for ID at 200NM standoff.........
> 
> I've caught plenty of people red-handed..........dont need a fighter for that. An MPA has plenty of stand-off sensors that give you the ability you speak of.



How long does it take a fighter at MACH 1.5 to travel 200 NM ?


----------



## dimsum

George Wallace said:
			
		

> How long does it take a fighter at MACH 1.5 to travel 200 NM ?



The better question is probably "how long of an endurance would said fighter have once it's out at 200nm?"  I doubt it would be the same (without tanker support) as an MPA.


----------



## George Wallace

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The better question is probably "how long of an endurance would said fighter have once it's out at 200nm?"  I doubt it would be the same (without tanker support) as an MPA.



The question still stands.  We can just as easily ask how long does it take a NSM to travel that same distance (if it had double the range) or perhaps a Kh-55 which definitely does have the range?


----------



## Fastam

George Wallace said:
			
		

> How long does it take a fighter at MACH 1.5 to travel 200 NM ?



assuming 35 000 feet plus, mach 1.5 is around 990knots. So a little over 12min.

I doubt an F35 can make Mach 1.5 for 12 min. An F-22 most likely can.


----------



## NavyShooter

I'll step back into my lane at this point.

NS


----------



## WingsofFury

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> WoF,
> 
> I am a maritime aviator and have the Advanced operational EW course, i hope you will agree that i have "done my homework".
> 
> LO technology is far from the "be-all-end-all" it is touted to be. Once an F-35 has radiated , its like hanging a big sign that says "here i am". Its range and loiter capability are limited. LO does not mean undetectable.....just like a jammer is only effective until the aircraft gets to the target radar's burn-through range. There is a museum in Belgrade with an exibit you might find interesting.
> 
> A non-stealthy MPA can hang around for hours, use a multitude of sensors to gather information and use its weapons to act if required. It can do this well outside a surface contact's ability to do anything about it.



Your credentials will always be accepted my friend.  

My argument, which I know I could have versed much more clearly but wasn't due to the heat of the exchange, wasn't so much that the F-35 could perform the role better than the Aurora - it was that the F-35 had certain qualities which it could avail itself of in that particular role and, with my own emphasis added, *perform in that role better than the Hornet.*

I have no doubt in my mind that the Aurora is the perfect solution for Canada's current and short term LRP plans, especially with its new Block III technology.

To get this thread back onto topic and not delve back into the JSF sideshow, does anyone know how many Block III's we have (guessing at 3-4?) and how the testing is going with the Maritime Proving and Evaluation Unit?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> With things like anaprop, radar lobes and blind speeds, a "probable" detection is as good as you'll get. There will always be weird things that can happen to work both ways with radar.



So you're saying, given all your probables, that an aircraft cannot, in any case, come in at Mach 1.5, or maybe faster, at sea level, without being detected before it lifts the hats off the lookouts? If you are not on auto engage, could you negate the threat after he appeared to you in that time, or would he be passed and gone before you realized and could react? 

I don't know that much about this stuff and I am just trying to get an understanding from the people that have the technical know how, practical knowledge gained from real world experience and a true understanding of the systems they are talking about.


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> How long does it take a fighter at MACH 1.5 to travel 200 NM ?




An MPA has already been following the contact for 10 hours, has detailed ISAR generated pictures of the contact and its ESM set has fingerprinted every single radar the contact has emitted. All from that distance. When its out of gas, it will handover to another MPA who will track it for 10 more. After / during all that, the MPA can even do OTHT or VASSTAC.

How many times did an F-35 brake off-station to go to the tanker in 10 hours ?

In the end its not because a fighter can do *some* maritime recce, that it should.


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> a Kh-55 which definitely does have the range?



If it was only a question of range............


----------



## aesop081

Fastam said:
			
		

> I would like to comment that the F-35 will have an AESA radar that it suposed to be an LPI set.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Probability_of_Intercept_Radar



If an LPI radar was undetectable, it would have been called a ZPI radar.



> While I doubt anyone on this forum knows just how hard these new fighter sized AESA's are to detect . Most of the unclassified info I can find on them sugest that it is next to impossible for current generation RWR's to detect.



Fine and dandy for RWR.....what about more sophisticated ES systems  or next gen RWR systems for that matter ??



> As well the F35 is suposed to get the DAS.
> http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35targeting/



The glossy DAS brochure says alot of things......


----------



## Fastam

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> If an LPI radar was undetectable, it would have been called a ZPI radar.



I agree.


> Fine and dandy for RWR.....what about more sophisticated ES systems  or next gen RWR systems for that matter ??



Forgive my ignorance in this area but are not most ES system passive in nature, therefore the same pricipal as a RWR?

So with the info that we have on LPIs is that each T/R module operates on a differeny freguency, and each module continuously changes frequency. Does that not make it extremely hard to process possibly dozens of different radar beams? 

Maybe somthing with very large computing power such as an USN Aegis combat system could detect it. Honestly I don't know, and i'm sure it's all classified as is.


> The glossy DAS brochure says alot of things......



That it does. However detecting an ICBM from 800 miles is no small feat for a fighter based IRST system. Who's to know if it could not detect a ships heat signature at say 100-200 miles?


Not to say that an F35 could replace a proper MPA, however it would be usefull to asist.. I agree fully with you on that. Ontopic, do you think the P8 could serve Canada's needs?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> So you're saying, given all your probables, that an aircraft cannot, in any case, come in at Mach 1.5, or maybe faster, at sea level, without being detected before it lifts the hats off the lookouts?



It's pretty unlikely. Radar horizon vs very low flying aircraft is around 20 nm, and assuming they're flying at 900 knots, they'll cover that distance in 80 seconds. A radar will have a lot of chances to detect the aircraft in that 80 seconds. In any case, at that range it wouldn't matter if the aircraft was an F-35 or not, the math is still the same.



> If you are not on auto engage, could you negate the threat after he appeared to you in that time, or would he be passed and gone before you realized and could react?



That would depend on the operators more than the equipment. For what it's worth, there isn't much difference between a pop-up missile attack and what you've described. And we've had to deal with the threat of pop-up missile attacks for 50 years.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

All of the above are nice theoretical discussions on the best "attack" bird against a military surface target in wartime. Unfortunately, that is only a very small fraction of what we expect from a MPA, and the only fraction for which fast air can outperform it.

Should we deal with the more likely scenarios of the next 30 years or so for Canada?

95% of targets in the Canadian area of maritime interest will be merchant ships, the other 5% military in nature, but met in peaceful conditions.

Dealing with merchant ships first: Regardless of their navigation radar capabilities, they won't spot a F-35, or an MPA or even a Helicopter. Why? (I have sailed with merchies), and once they are a few miles off the coast, the officer of the watch may glance at his radar every 15-20 minutes or so. When he does, he is looking for something as big as he is and won't notice the small contact that is an airplane of any description. His alarm is set for anything that crosses the 12 NM range ring.

So why do we bother with them? Because it lets us compile the common maritime picture, which is more of an intelligence tool than anything else and it lets those merchies know that we are watching them. For that, the MPA is far better than fast air. Sure you can go by in your F-35 at mach 1.5, but at that speed, the merchant seaman don't even know who overflew them, and do you think the F-35 pilot has time to note the ship's name, port of origin marked on the stern and the shipping company by smokestack markings and make a note of all the main characteristics of the ship to compare the compiled photograph databank and confirm that the ship is the one it pretends to be? No, but MPA's can.

As for military targets in peace time, MPA's are superior again. CDN Aviator has explained above all of the types of information that MPA's can gather on enemy targets before they even bother to  come close enough to be detected, if they ever do. But in peace time, I certainly would close the target after gathering all my info on it, just to tell them "Look here buddy, I know you are here and I got all sort of good data on you. See ya next time!".

Finally , and I know its not even been suggested as a fast air potential, but there is the ASW aspect to the job that must be taken into consideration: When you leave on patrol, you don't know ahead of time what type of contact you are likely to encounter, surface or subsurface. MPA's cover the range, fast air doesn't.  I would rather have a platform that does all the missions out here than one that only does  one limited aspect.

But getting back to what this thread is supposed to be about, the P-8 Poseidon, IMHO our Aurora's are doing a great job and we may have them for a while yet in view of fiscal constraints, but if we had to replace them today, the P-8 on a one for one replacement basis would be my first choice.


----------



## Green On!

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Green On!
> 
> I'm pretty sure that we know each other.
> 
> Look- I will stipulate up front that long range, high endurance UAVs have a place in our inventory and will eventually enter service with the CF.  I'm just not sure that I agree with your position on the availabilty of commercial satellites to meet our control segment needs- I don't thnk that they are always in the right orbits for us, that we can get all of dedicated bandwidth we need at a price that we can live with and that it would be a secure enough set up.  I also think that the support personnel bill (Comm techs, Int Ops, etc) to make this work properly has always been under- estimated.  Finally, not even the US Military has been able to convince the FAA  to allow both UAVs and civil traffic to mix, because they haven't been able to build a compelling safety of flight case.  The case will be eventually built- I just don't think it will happen until around 2020.
> 
> Good discussion.



SH-3 Tacco

 In Canada we are well served by the ANIK family of geosynchronous satellites, and the price for a dedicated Ku transponder or two would not be a real show-stopper, but that really is a moot point in terms of cost in a UAS vs manned aircraft discussion.  If we want to pass NRT ISR data (SAR/GMTI/FMV,ESM,etc) from a CP-140, P-8, MC-12, or whatever, back to a central location, it would require the same bandwidth as if it was collected by a UAS.  Conversely, if the UAS is within LOS of a ground or sea element (or manned a/c) this data stream can be fed via data link for free.  Additionally, if we want to solely conduct collection, and analyse at a later date, the mission can be stored onboard and downloaded at the end of the flight.  C2 links use minuscule amounts of bandwidth in comparison to data, and are not really a factor.  I'm not a Information Assurance  expert, but I don't see how the issue of security is something we couldn't overcome; regardless of the medium, data can be encrypted and redundancy added.

Of course, manned platforms have the ability to conduct a certain amount of on-board exploitation, but I really believe that for numerous reasons, this can in many instances be better executed via reach-back and is the way of the future.  Of course there will still be the need for platforms like the P-8 to execute mission requirements that UASs can't do.

Finally, at FL 600 there is virtually no other air traffic to be concerned about except a few U2s, and other HALEs, so I don't imagine national ATM agencies are too concerned about the mixing of manned and un-manned platforms in that part of the sky. In fact one such agency has just released guidelines on this very issue. Your point about flight in non-segregated, congested airspace is valid, but this only makes up a small percentage of a HALE UAS mission profile (arr & dep) and safe separation can be easily managed procedurally...as it is today in several locations.



Green On!


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Green On!

Perhaps my Google Fu is weak tonight, but what I am seeing is that the K-band attenuation for Anik F3 will cause definite issues North of Yellowknife, West of Vancouver Island or East of the Grand Banks, unless one has a big honkin receiver/transmitter:
www.satbeams.com/footprints?beam=5772

I'm not trying to be combative- I'm genuinely curious if I'm reading the reception chart correctly.

I will also stipulate that few will care if we operate a UAS at FL600- it was dipping below that , especially for launch and recovery, that I don't believe Transport Canada or Navcanada are institutionally ready for, yet.


----------



## SupersonicMax

SKT:

Many military airspaces are always or NOTAMd to infinity.  Would it not be possible to use such airpsace for Launch & recovery?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

A CYR up to FL600?  That might work.  An ALTRV may work better.  I guess it kind of depends on where the mythical UAS are based and where they are expected to patrol...


----------



## Green On!

SKT,

I don't see your question as combative, and I'd say your Google FU is pretty strong as that is a great link. To be honest, I have no idea what sort of db gain is required for the bandwidth required. And yes there are issues with coverage in the north, but I'm surprised how quickly the Anik 3 Ku coverage drops off the coasts. I guess since fish don't watch TV, you're not going to see a lot of Ku coverage where there aren't a lot of paying customers.  Still, between the various other birds (ie Anik 1, 2, Galaxy 28) up there, enough coverage should be available to handle the coasts and even up to the mid arctic.


----------



## Zoomie

If by "up north" you guys mean the high arctic - there is no coverage to speak of.  CFS Alert has to daisy chain its data via a microwave link hundreds of miles south to Eureka in order for data upload.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I hope this adds a bit of light, rather than just heat, to the discussion.

Real _global_ satellite coverage is impossible from the geostationary orbit (GEO) - that position, some 35,000+ KM above the equator, in which a satellite orbits at the same speed as the earth rotates and, therefore, appears to be stationary above a single point on the earth. A little basic arithmetic will show you that the coverage stops will short of e.g. Alert - as others have said.

Most satellites use multiple antennas and multiple signal "shapes" to _direct_ their beams to specific target markets or areas of interest. Some frequency bands are better for wide area coverage, others are better suited to "spot" service. Most satellites operates n the 4-8, and 12-40 GHz bands - subdivided by relatively senseless and non-standard letter codes.

In general, three satellites in GEO (with at least one spare 'parked' in orbit) can cover *most* of the surface of the planet from 80oN to 80oS - which is pretty nearly global coverage.

To get real global coverage one must use satellites in non-geostationary orbits (NGSO). There are many NGSO schemes: low earth orbit (LEO) (think e.g. _Iridium_), medium earth orbit (MEO) (think e.g. _Globalstar_) or high earth or highly elliptical orbit (HEO) and polar orbit, and, and, and ... Each has pros and cons but each requires:

1. A 'constellation' of satellites, say a dozen for MEO and 60+ for LEO to provide near real time, 24/7, *global* coverage; and

2. Some combination of high power on the satellites - to deal with, say, hand held earth stations, and/or high gain and steerable antennas on earth - to deal with relatively low power satellites.

I no longer know anything about costs, but way back back when, _circa_ 1995, I knew that Motorola spent in excess of $10 billion to launch 66 LEO satellites. I forget how many launches there were (11 or 12, I think) but it was a big expenditure.

Could Canada do such a thing, launch its own military, global satellite constellation? Technically, yes. It is rocket science, but we can do it. Can we afford it? Broadly, yes; Canada can afford it, DND cannot. Could a _consortium_ of nations launch a shared government/military global satellite system? Yes, provided they are really trusted allies - let's say they have not fired shots in anger (at one another) for more than 100 years. The problem with shared systems is that the 'partners' must agree to share control and information - something the US, for example, is always reluctant to do. Can a 'consortium' that does not include the USA design, build, launch and manage really effective, secure, global satellite networks for surveillance and warning and C2? Yes. Much of the technology the USA does not want to share with allies comes from Australian, British, Canadian, Dutch and e.g. Singaporean universities and research centres.

Satellites are not (overly) complicated but they are expensive.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Edward-

Thank-you for the satellite primer.  I realized that a couple of the posts may have wandered into territory where (possibly) a good deal of the readership did not understand the orbital mechanics at play.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Now the Brits are looking for something to replace the Nimrod:

MoD considers maritime patrol options
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=15587



> A joint Royal Navy/RAF team is "considering options" for the UK's maritime patrol capability in the long term following the scrapping of the Nimrod MRA4 programme, the MoD has confirmed.
> 
> The Portsmouth News this week reported that the MoD may be prepared to *spend up to £1bn on a new maritime patrol aircraft* [emphasis added] to be operated by the Fleet Air Arm.
> 
> The 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) cancelled the Nimrod MRA4 programme before the nine aircraft had been accepted into service, leading to the closure of RAF Kinloss.
> 
> The programme had cost around £4bn, and was nearly £800m over budget and nine-and-a-half years late when it was scrapped.
> 
> An MoD spokesman said: "Ministers and service chiefs have made clear that the decision in October's SDSR not to bring the Nimrod MRA4 into service was difficult.
> 
> "The severe financial pressures and the urgent need to bring the defence programme into balance meant we could not retain all existing programmes. We will continue joint maritime patrol activities with our allies and will ensure the integrity of UK waters by utilising a range of other military assets, including Type 23 Frigates, Merlin Anti Submarine Warfare helicopters and Hercules C-130 aircraft.
> 
> "As part of SDSR implementation work, a joint Navy/RAF team is considering options for the UK's longer-term requirement for a maritime patrol capability."



Might what the UK comes up with be worth watching in terms of our options to replace the Aurora?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

As we have not "officially" started looking at the Aurora's replacement by issuing specs for biding, anything else than a P-8 Poseidon that would come out in the meantime could be worth watching as option for replacement of the Aurora, as long as you are talking about another LRMPA. 

If you are talking about the other stop gap measures the UK is considering, i.e. the use of frigates and maritime helicopters, the size of our maritime area of responsibility and the limited helicopter and frigate resources we possess would make it impossible to substitute them for the Aurora's tasks at a reasonable cost (we would easily be talking multiples of the cost of purchasing new LRMPA's). For Canada's situation, nothing gives us a better "bang for the buck" in naval surveillance and area ASW capability than a maritime patrol plane.


----------



## Drag

The CMA(Aurora Replacement) project will be the next political hot potato of defence procurement.  Watch for the pressure from industry(read Bombardier) to award the contract domestically.  If you go domestic you may get a half descent ISR package but no weapons capability.


----------



## aesop081

D3 said:
			
		

> If you go domestic you may get a half descent ISR package *but no weapons capability*.



That depends entirely on the airframe chosen and what type(s) of weapons you wish to employ. Your choice of terms (ISR) also overlooks the fact that ISR is not the Aurora's only role.


----------



## dapaterson

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> ISR is not the Aurora's only role.



Jammy TD for the crew ranks right up there too.  >


----------



## Zoomie

D3 said:
			
		

> The CMA(Aurora Replacement) project will be _the next_ political hot potato of defence procurement.


I don't think it is the next project for the foreseeable future - AIMP and ASLEP (wing replacement) has pretty much taken care of the SGOD for a fair chunk of years.  

If the Canadian Government is still serious about its ASW role, then nothing that Bombardier has to offer COTS will suffice.  They will need to pony up the cash like Boeing did with their P-8 platform and design something with a bomb-bay and huge range.


----------



## aesop081

Zoomie said:
			
		

> .  They will need to pony up the cash like Boeing did with their P-8 platform and design something with a bomb-bay and huge range.



...and that will likely make whatever they come up with unaffordable. The only possibility (IMHO) is to partner up with other nations seeking to replace their P-3 or ATL 1/2 and develop an alternative to the P-8.

AIMP block 3 and ASLEP will allow the CP-140 to continue to 2025-2030. If Canada starts thinking seriously now, that gives time to come up with realistic replacement options while maintaining a serious capability.


----------



## dapaterson

D3 said:
			
		

> The CMA(Aurora Replacement) project will be the next political hot potato of defence procurement.



Fixed Wing SAR will be much, much more of a hot potato and much much sooner than the CMA project.  Viking Air is pushing their new Twin Otters; Bombardier is pushing the Q400; and there's the C27 and C295 both looking for a sale in Canada.


I suspect sequencing of other major projects will have a major impact  on FWSAR - my cynical side suggests we'll get Q400s if Quebec shipyards are cut out of the shipbuilding strategy, Twin Otters if the west coast is excluded...


----------



## Loachman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> my cynical side suggests we'll get Q400s if Quebec shipyards are cut out of the shipbuilding strategy,



Because buying aircraft built in Toronto is a surefire way to keep Quebec happy?


----------



## Good2Golf

Loachman said:
			
		

> Because buying aircraft built in Toronto is a surefire way to keep Quebec happy?



LM, it's still a Bombardier product and many/most parts are still made in Dorval.  Final assembly is at Downsview, not a lot of the fabrication.


As a tangential viewer to the CMA issue, my assessment is a practical although likely unpopular (with those who want to be seen as moving forward) option.  Much like there is lots of life left in the design of the CH-47 (I think we'll see them flying well past the middle of the century), I think the design of the P-3/CP140 is particularly sound, just the issue of some components (wing boxes, engines, etc...) needs to be addressed.  I think the best bang for the buck for the taxpayers would be Phase 4 and ongoing ASLEP-type program elements for the next 30-40 years.  I can't help but think that the P-8 was an idea looking for job.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Zoomie

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> ...and that will likely make whatever they come up with unaffordable. The only possibility (IMHO) is to partner up with other nations seeking to replace their P-3 or ATL 1/2 and develop an alternative to the P-8.


Exactly - as much as I am not a current fan of the jungle jet - Bombardier could learn something from its South American competitors Embraer.  FWSAR and MPA/LRP replacements here and here.

Viking Air really doesn't have anything to offer the CF when it comes to FWSAR - they have pipe dreams, but nothing on the tarmac that can be taken seriously.  A Q400 FWSAR will just be a nightmare - we need a military transport aircraft that has a robust airframe, not something that is meant to fly out of paved strips.


----------



## dapaterson

Option 3 for FWSAR would be to stick wings on one of these:







(Original photo caption is "Worst vehicle in NATO")


----------



## Zoomie

/shudder

Will it come with squeaky brakes too?


----------



## MJP

Zoomie said:
			
		

> /shudder
> 
> Will it come with squeaky brakes too?



One could only hope...

Plus you get a heater that spontaneously ignites from time to time.


----------



## h3tacco

An aircraft that I am sure has been overlooked for the CMA is the Japanese P-1. This is the first purpose built MPA in a long time. 

Japan operates over a 100 P-3s. I am guessing they are the second largest P-3 operator and probably the second largest MPA/LRPA operator in the world. The Kawasaki P-1 is being built and designed solely to replace the P-3 and is not a converted airliner. The major stumbling block I see is the Japaneses export laws, however, I understand they may change in the near term. 






The aircraft first flew in 2007 but there is very little open source English information I am curious how the project is progressing and how it compares to its Western rivals. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_P-1


----------



## dapaterson

Japan has prohibitions on arms exports, so their P1 is a non-starter.


----------



## aesop081

h3tacco said:
			
		

> An aircraft that I am sure has been overlook for the CMA is the Japanese P-1.



I was in Japan late last year and talked to their P-3 guys, the P-1 project is in danger of cancellation due to budget cutbacks.


----------



## h3tacco

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Japan has prohibitions on arms exports, so their P1 is a non-starter.



True but their is a significant movement in Japan to change the arms export ban. 

http://newpacificinstitute.org/jsw/?p=3592

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-14/bae-eads-to-seek-easing-of-japan-s-three-ps-limits-on-weapons-exports.html

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/un/disarmament/policy/index.html


----------



## h3tacco

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I was in Japan late last year and talked to their P-3 guys, the P-1 project is in danger of cancellation due to budget cutbacks.



Cool. Was there any other insight into the P-1?


----------



## aesop081

h3tacco said:
			
		

> Cool. Was their any other insight into the P-1?



It looked very promissing in their eyes and they were justifiably proud to show off what they could to us. They did express concerns that the cost of the project was high and that the government was seriously considering going another route.

The internal layout of the aircraft was well thought out. The sensor suite, AFAIR, was of similar capability to the Block 3 Aurora but i am admitedly fuzzy on the details presented at the breif......i was recovering from the "freindship" party the night before.


----------



## Drag

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> That depends entirely on the airframe chosen and what type(s) of weapons you wish to employ. Your choice of terms (ISR) also overlooks the fact that ISR is not the Aurora's only role.



My point was the the Aurora has other roles, namely ASW, and that domestic industry cannot presently meet those roles.  Building a made-in-Canada aircraft with all the capabilities of a P8 would be cost prohibitive and would take decades.


----------



## aesop081

D3 said:
			
		

> My point was the the Aurora has other roles, namely ASW,



Never knew that  :


----------



## Drag

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Never knew that  :



You would be surprised how many don't... Including pers associated with various efforts to upgrade the Auroras, when I pointed to a certain capability that was being briefed to one individual at a conference down south, his reply was "Why?  That's for hunting submatins.  Sub hunting is a Cold War thing. We don't need it now."  
As an aside, I wonder how many fully ASW qualified Aurora crews could we muster in an emergency...


----------



## aesop081

D3 said:
			
		

> You would be surprised how many don't...



With 3200 hours on the Aurora, i am not one of those people.



			
				D3 said:
			
		

> As an aside, I wonder how many fully ASW qualified Aurora crews could we muster in an emergency...



Answer : Enough.

Example : We deployed 2 combat-ready ASW crews with aircraft, support and maintenance personnel, with only 2 hours notice to move, half-way around the world on 24 March 2011 and began operations within 72 hours.


----------



## Zoomie

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> With 3200 hours on the Aurora, i am not one of those people.



A few more hours and you might know your job as well as the front end....   It only takes them a quarter of those hours to be MPCC.


----------



## aesop081

Zoomie said:
			
		

> A few more hours and you might know your job as well as the front end....   It only takes them a quarter of those hours to be MPCC.



I'm quite comfortable in the knowledge that i have much more experience that a new LRPCC, specially nowadays.


----------



## Zoomie

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I'm quite comfortable in the knowledge that i have much more experience that a new LRPCC, specially nowadays.



Absolutely - the CC will always defer to the crew members when it comes to their specific  jobs.  He/she is not going to counter the FE's judgement when it comes to the aircraft's subsystems, just as he won't talk about RADAR propagation and the like to an AESOP - he'll just expect the job to be carried out.


----------



## NavyShooter

CDN, 

Your past trip opened a few new horizons, eh?  

The CF might have the Air-Land battle sorted out, but for the first time in a LONG time, we worked out the kinks in the Air-Sea battle-space.

NS


----------



## aesop081

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> CDN,
> 
> Your past trip opened a few new horizons, eh?
> 
> The CF might have the Air-Land battle sorted out, but for the first time in a LONG time, we worked out the kinks in the Air-Sea battle-space.
> 
> NS



It was a great trip indeed and we broke ally of ground for CF operations.


----------



## h3tacco

Looks like Japan is planning to lift its ban on arms exports before the end of the year. Maybe the P-1 could be considered for the CMA project.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204552304577119194270959370.html

Merry Xmas


----------



## Rifleman62

http://defensetech.org/2012/03/07/the-navys-newest-sub-hunter/

*The Navy’s Newest Sub-Hunter*

There you have it, the U.S. Navy’s *first production P-8A *submarine hunter taking off on its first flight from Boeing’s plant in Seattle on March 6.

The plane flew to Naval Air Station Jacksonville in Florida where it will serve as a training jet, helping the sea service’s sub-hunters get used to flying in equipment that isn’t based on a 55 year-old design (oh wait, the 737 design is almost 50, but at least it’s still in production and the new versions resemble old 737 only in appearances). Anyway, the old sub-hunters I’m talking about are the venerable P-3 Orions, they entered the fleet in the 1960s and are based on the 1950s vintage Lockheed Electra airliner.

In all seriousness, the P-8 is a big leap for the Navy, the plane is going to work with UAV’s such as Northrop Grumman’s RQ-4 GLobal Hawk-based Broad Area Maritime Surveillance jet to hunt down subs and probably anything else on the high seas and in the “littorals”.

Second Photo: 
*
P-8 Launches Torpedo for the First Time*

Check out this picture of the U.S. Navy’s P-8 subhunter launching a torpedo for the very first time. As you can see, the Mk 54 test torpedo was launched on Oct. 13 from the 737-based jet’s weapons bay (notice how the bay doors are open in the photo).

The test drop happened at about 500-feet above the water and was the first in a series of P-8 weapons tests meant to evaluate safe separation from the aircraft, delivery accuracy and weapon integration, according to NAVAIR.

It should be noted, that in addition to launching sonobouys and scanning the sea-surface with its APY-10 radar, the P-8 can also carry Harpoon anti-ship missiles and maybe even air-to-air missiles. (Its predecessor, the P-3 has carried, and used, Harpoon missiles, maverick air-to-ground missiles and Sidewinder air-to-air missiles.)


Read more: http://defensetech.org/2012/03/07/the-navys-newest-sub-hunter/#ixzz1oXG0YJXS
Defense.org


----------



## Grizzly

If Canada ever did consider purchasing the P-8A, would our version include the magnetic anomaly detector? From what I've read, the US removed it from their P-8s to save weight and increase range, but the P-8I for the Indian Navy is going to retain it. Is a MAD still a useful sensor? If so, is an increased range worth the trade off of losing a potentially valuable sensor capability?


----------



## aesop081

Grizzly said:
			
		

> From what I've read, the US removed it from their P-8s to save weight and increase range,



That is incorrect.



> but the P-8I for the Indian Navy is going to retain it.



Yes, the P-8I has MAD.



> Is a MAD still a useful sensor?



Oh hell yes.



> If so, is an increased range worth the trade off of losing a potentially valuable sensor capability?



That certainly depends on how one intends to use the aircraft. No sense having MAD if your concept of operations doesn't have you spend time blow 1000 feet.

For reference, MAD systems tend to not be complicated systems. The ASQ-502 currently on the CP-140 does not have all that many components and does not weight all that much in the grand scheme of things. I don't think that a modern MAD system's weight would be much of an issue.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I could be wrong here, but I seem to remember reading somewhere (can't find it back though!) that the US intended to put a small version MAD on the modified Global Hawks that are to be controlled by the Poseidons.

Can someone shed light on this?


----------



## aesop081

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I could be wrong here, but I seem to remember reading somewhere (can't find it back though!) that the US intended to put a small version MAD on the modified Global Hawks that are to be controlled by the Poseidons.
> 
> Can someone shed light on this?



Global Hawks will not operate at an altitude low enough to employ MAD.


----------



## Sub_Guy

MAD is the one sensor I have grown to love, nothing beats hearing the MAD Mark call while tracking.  It pretty much seals the deal.  There have been many times where I have mumbled to my fellow ASO, "I wish the ******* MAD was working"...

According to Wiki  :, MAD was removed to save on the weight issue, endurance issue, in the words of Karl Pilkington's superhero B.S. Man, I call BS on that.  They have the MAD equipment listed as weighing in at 1600 kg!

Maybe it's just me and my tampons, but I wouldn't feel comfortable doing MAD runs on the P8 anyway...  (not that I have to worry about that).

As for the UAV, here is one idea...  http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/dti/2012/01/01/DT_01_01_2012_p50-403446.xml&channel=defense

"One idea under study is for the P-8A to launch a version of Boeing’s Scan- Eagle UAV that could carry a MAD sensor. The UAV would recover to a land base."    <-  Fantastic Idea, because all ASW missions are within range of an Allied air base, equipped to recover Scan Eagles.


----------



## Kirkhill

Is this a new method for the Aurora and Poseidon types to reach out and touch the ground?



> STM Phase II is a new 13.5-pound, 22-inch long, precision-guided, gravity-dropped bomb specifically designed for employment from manned and unmanned aircraft systems.
> 
> STM Phase II is more than 2 inches shorter than the Phase I design and has foldable fins and wings, enabling two weapons to be placed inside the U.S. military's common launch tube. STM Phase II's modular assembly will make the system simpler to manufacture on a large scale.


 link


----------



## WingsofFury

It's a long read, but this gives a great account of what Aurora crews did in theatre last year.  BZ to all involved.



> Punching Above It's Weight - The CP140 Aurora Experience within Task Force Libeccio and Operation MOBILE
> 
> By Captain Daniel Arsenault and Captain Josh Christianson
> 
> Few airborne platforms in the world have as broad a spectrum of roles as the modern long-range patrol aircraft (LRPA). Canada’s LRPA, the CP140 Aurora, is no exception and over the past two decades, it has seen its scope of operations expand from the naval surface and subsurface missions
> of the cold war era. In the past 12 months, CP140s have been conducting operations in overland intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and control (ISR&C); naval gunfire support (NGS); overland strike coordination and reconnaissance (SCAR); maritime interdiction; psychological operations; counter
> narcotics; fisheries and sovereignty patrols; search and rescue; and support to other government departments (OGDs).
> 
> These roles continue to grow and evolve with technology and the joint force commander’s (JFC’s) demand for realtime situational awareness, regardless of the battlespace. In March 2011, a longrange patrol (LRP) air expeditionary unit (AEU) deployed as part of Task Force (TF) Libeccio, the air campaign within Operation (Op) MOBILE, providing the commander with that crucial awareness. Operation MOBILE refers to Canada’s contribution to
> Op UNIFIED PROTECTOR, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization- (NATO-) led mission in Libya, which included a maritime arms embargo authorized under United Nation (UN) Security Council Resolution 1970, and was subsequently strengthened with the passing of Resolution 1973 and the
> establishment of a no-fly zone.  The ultimate goal of this contribution was the protection of civilians in Libya. It was also the first LRP Canadian Expeditionary Force Command deployment out of Canada since supporting Op ATHENA in 2009 and the first sustained, multiple-crew rotation deployment for the CP140 since Op APOLLO in 2003.



Entire report can be read at this link ->  http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/cfawc/eLibrary/Journal/2012-Vol1/Iss3-Summer/Sections/05-Punching_Above_the_Weight_The_CP140_Aurora_Experience_Within_Task_Force_Libeccio_and_Operation_MOBILE_e.pdf


----------



## Haletown

P-8 article  . . .  Overview discussion of to be MAD or not


http://defense.aol.com/2012/10/02/navys-p-8-sub-hunter-bets-on-high-altitude-high-tech-barf-bag/?icid=trending3


----------



## CougarKing

Complicated weapon systems often have teething problems early in their career. The P-8 is apparently no exeception.



> ====
> 
> *U.S. Navy’s new surveillance plane is full of flaws and not yet effective*
> Jan 25 2014
> 
> Aviationist
> 
> By David Cenciotti
> Although it has not been released yet, the outcome of the annual report on major weapons, by Michael Gilmore, chief of the Pentagon testing office, has already made the news.
> 
> Even if the report does not use the word “flop”,  it depicts the new Boeing P-8A Poseidon as just not yet effective in two of its main missions: anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and wide area reconnaissance.
> 
> *Flaws in the multi-million program (actually, a 35 billion USD endeavour) are almost everywhere: radar, sensor integration, data transfer.*
> 
> (...)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bumped with some new info - it seems there'll be more time to choose a replacement for the Aurora ....


> The federal Conservative government’s centrepiece defence strategy has taken another hit as plans to buy a new fleet of airplanes to patrol Canada’s coasts and its Arctic territory by 2020 have been effectively shelved.
> 
> Instead, documents tabled in the House of Commons on Thursday say the government will invest more than $2 billion to keep its existing Aurora maritime patrol aircraft flying until 2030, by which point the planes will be nearly 50 years old.
> 
> (....)
> 
> The Auroras underwent a 10-year, $1.6-billion upgrade starting in 1999 to keep them flying to 2020, at which point the Conservative government had planned to purchase 10 to 12 replacements as part of its $240-billion defence strategy.
> 
> But budget estimates tabled Thursday said the government has scrapped that plan and instead will “extend the lifespan of the 14 existing aircraft until 2030,” at a total cost of $2.13 billion.
> 
> A spokeswoman for Defence Minister Rob Nicholson said it was the air force’s idea to put off the purchase and upgrade the Auroras instead.
> 
> “The augmentation of the Aurora fleet will extend the lifespan of these aircrafts to provide service at the best value for taxpayers,” spokeswoman Johanna Quinney said in an email.  “The Aurora is one of the most capable long-range patrol aircrafts in the world and the retrofit will be completed in Canada.” ....


----------



## cupper

*The P-8A Poseidon adventure begins for the Navy*

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57619756-76/the-p-8a-poseidon-adventure-begins-for-the-navy/

There's a new sub-hunter in town: the US Navy's P-8A Poseidon, just now taking to the air to replace the venerable P-3C Orion. And soon it'll have a drone deputy.



> The US Navy likes to dip into Greek and Roman mythology to name the aircraft it puts on the front lines of maritime patrol missions and antisubmarine warfare.
> 
> Once there was the P-2 Neptune, which went into service not long after World War II and has long since been retired. The early 1960s brought the P-3 Orion, the scions of which are still on active duty today. Now, to replace the venerable Orion, comes the P-8A Poseidon.
> 
> At the beginning of December 2013, a half-dozen Poseidons arrived at Kadena Air Base on the island of Okinawa for the aircraft's first operational deployment, on duty with the Navy's Patrol Squadron 16 (VP 16) in support of the 7th Fleet. To date, Boeing has delivered 13 of the aircraft, which are based on its commercial 737-800 design. (Similarly, the new KC-46A Tanker aerial-refueling aircraft, which is to replace the older KC-135 Stratotankers and KC-10 Extenders, is based on the commercial Boeing 767 design.)
> 
> And more are on the way: a few days ago, Boeing said that it had received a $2.4 billion contract from the Navy to build an additional 16, and to move to full production from the earlier status of preliminary low-rate production. That puts the big defense contractor under contract so far to deliver 53 of the P-8A Poseidons. Eventually, the Navy aims to acquire a grand total of 117.
> 
> The role of the P-8A is long-range antisubmarine and antisurface warfare, and for good measure it can also do more general intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. The Navy says that the jet-powered P-8A is significantly quieter than the propeller-driven P-3C (the most modern version of the P-3), requires less maintenance, and provides more on-station time (meaning, essentially, that it can hang out longer in a given patrol area).
> 
> It's the rare new piece of military technology that comes on the scene without some controversy. (F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, we're looking at you.) In the case of the P-8A Poseidon, the head of the Pentagon's testing office has pointed to a number of "deficiencies" in the P-8A that would make the aircraft, at least early on, "not effective for the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance mission and...not effective for wide area anti-submarine search," according to a prepublication version of an annual report on weapons systems seen by Bloomberg News.
> 
> A Navy spokeswoman cited by Bloomberg sought to lay those concerns to rest: "Most issues cited have been collectively identified," she said, and the Navy has developed "software upgrades to correct deficiencies."
> 
> For the foreseeable future, the Navy won't be relying on the P-8A Poseidon alone for sub-hunting and other patrol missions. The P-3C Orion will remain deployed for a transition phase while the Poseidon squadrons get up to full strength.
> 
> And soon enough, too, the Poseidon, which has a crew of nine, will have a new partner in the air -- an unmanned one. It'll be Northrop Grumman's MQ-4C Triton, a drone aircraft adapted from the established Global Hawk, intended to share the work load the Poseidon. Eventually, there will be 68 of the Triton aircraft -- and there's that Greek mythology thing again -- but for now, that's still a long way off. As of the start of this year, Northrop Grumman and the Navy had conducted nine test flights of the Triton.



Link to Photos

http://news.cnet.com/2300-11386_3-10019227.html


----------



## CougarKing

Will Australia's Orions be put up for foreign sales once the Poseidons are all in RAAF service?

Defense News



> *P-8 News: Indian Options, Australian Production*
> 
> VICTORIA, Australia — A Boeing official said negotiations are underway with India to convert options to buy four P-8I Neptune maritime intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance aircraft into firm orders.
> 
> *India ordered eight P-8Is in 2009; six have been delivered.*
> 
> "We're currently talking with them about executing those four options," said James Detwiler, Boeing's P-8 business development director for maritime systems, at the Australian International Airshow. "We understand there is an interest to get that done sooner rather than later."
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> *Detwiler also said that manufacture of long-lead items for the first of eight P-8As for the Royal Australian Air Force was underway to support an early-2017 delivery.*
> 
> Australia holds options to buy four more P-8As, which will be considered as part of the forthcoming Defence White Paper process and in conjunction with up to seven Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton high-altitude, long-endurance (HALE) unmanned maritime surveillance aircraft.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## FSTO

Meanwhile in Canada..............(crickets)............can we get 40 more years out of the Aurora?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well they might start restoring the Argus at CFB Comox and they could buy back some Trackers and Canso's Will go with the Military Heritage theme.....


----------



## dimsum

Some video of VP-5 and their P-8s.  I never though of the 737 as a "sexy" airplane, but it does look nice.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/watch-vp-5-mad-foxes-put-their-new-p-8a-poseidons-to-1693285770?utm_campaign=socialflow_jalopnik_facebook&utm_source=jalopnik_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow


----------



## Good2Golf

Not sure how the overall mission profiles are compared to P-3/CP-140, but it actually looks kinda cool and the flying close to the deck looks pretty fun!


----------



## cupper

It seems slow on take-off though. There's one sequence in the video where it takes 3 days and nights to get airborne.  ;D

Nice piece of kit. One thought I had is that with the commercial aircraft reconfigured, undetected surveillance of coastlines for drug interdiction and other similar mission would be easier, as the aircraft could fly at altitude along regular airline routes and not raise alarms of those being targeted. It would look just like any other commercial airliner.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> and the flying close to the deck looks pretty fun!



It actually is really fun.  Straight and level at 100' or 60 and 2s at 300' is great flying and great views out the front or aft windows.

Not quite as fun sitting on the Tac rail.


----------



## SupersonicMax

cupper said:
			
		

> Nice piece of kit. One thought I had is that with the commercial aircraft reconfigured, undetected surveillance of coastlines for drug interdiction and other similar mission would be easier, as the aircraft could fly at altitude along regular airline routes and not raise alarms of those being targeted. It would look just like any other commercial airliner.



Not quite.  If you are operating within 12 NM of a country's coast, you need to have a diplomatic clearance.  

If you operate outside 12 NM from the coast, you have 2 options: Due Regard or on a flight plan.

Due Regard, their ATC will see radar returns not on flight plan.  They will know a military aircraft is out you're doing some work. Only available to state aircraft.

If you are on a flight plan, you will have a Canforce callsign and will be filed as a military flight.

Either way, they'll know a military aircraft is out there.


----------



## George Wallace

Excellent points Max.  Air Traffic has been monitored closely for the last five or six decades and the tools used to monitor and track the thousands of aircraft in the air at one time have ever increased in their capabilities over those decades.  Stealth aircraft would have to be very sophisticated to elude detection, and an aircraft masquerading as a civilian airliner would not go unnoticed.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Not quite.  If you are operating within 12 NM of a country's coast, you need to have a diplomatic clearance.
> 
> If you operate outside 12 NM from the coast, you have 2 options: Due Regard or on a flight plan.
> 
> Due Regard, their ATC will see radar returns not on flight plan.  They will know a military aircraft is out you're doing some work. Only available to state aircraft.
> 
> If you are on a flight plan, you will have a Canforce callsign and will be filed as a military flight.
> 
> Either way, they'll know a military aircraft is out there.



I think that he meant the aircraft could stay incognito to drug ships, etc by flying along normal routes and appearing as a civilian airliner to the ship vice actually fooling a host nation ATC...


----------



## McG

Is detection and tracking of aircraft a developed capability within cartels?  I assume that would just provide another signature that makes them easier to find.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Bird_Gunner,

There are several tools to monitor non-military aircraft that are on a flight plan, a lot of them readily available online.  By elimination, it is fairly simple to deduct which one is civilian and which one is military.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Bird_Gunner,
> 
> There are several tools to monitor non-military aircraft that are on a flight plan, a lot of them readily available online.  By elimination, it is fairly simple to deduct which one is civilian and which one is military.



Agreed. But having worked in a TDL network/AD environment with North Bay I can assure you that there are ways in which flights can be blocked from internet/phone apps or masked if required. If that was the case than there would be no point to stealth aircraft as the "enemy" could just look them up on an app.


----------



## SupersonicMax

That's my point. As soon as you file Military as your flight type, it will be blocked from being seen by everybody.  Now, if let's say, a drug smugler sees an aircraft and it is not on those system, they could see it as a military flight.   By exclusion.  

Having been in North Bay, you should have an idea of the ressources Cartels have to avoid being detected and detecting us. Not that it is impossible to avoid being detected, but I don't think flying a civilian pattern aircraft is going to help much.

Tangent alert: Stealth is not meant for this kind of mission.  It's meant for war-time when you don't ask permission to enter sovereign airspace.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Tangent alert: Stealth is not meant for this kind of mission.  It's meant for war-time when you don't ask permission to enter sovereign airspace.



So Canada intends to enter another nation's sovereign airspace without permission, hence the F-35 as opposed to less stealthy fighters?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> That's my point. As soon as you file Military as your flight type, it will be blocked from being seen by everybody.  Now, if let's say, a drug smugler sees an aircraft and it is not on those system, they could see it as a military flight.   By exclusion.
> 
> Having been in North Bay, you should have an idea of the ressources Cartels have to avoid being detected and detecting us. Not that it is impossible to avoid being detected, but I don't think flying a civilian pattern aircraft is going to help much.
> 
> Tangent alert: Stealth is not meant for this kind of mission.  It's meant for war-time when you don't ask permission to enter sovereign airspace.



Tangent alert- I understand what stealth is for, as my previous discussions on aircraft have already indicated and really dont need your sarcasm. The stealth comparison was used to point out a fallacy with your example of ATC having overarching knowledge and being to bring up all the information off of the internet.

MCG- Drug smugglers do, in fact, have a great deal of resources, including submarines, and what they lack they have the money to buy after the fact. However, they are not TDL compatible (and to be fair, our military is BARELY TDL capable) and would only receive what is given by civilian authorities/radar signature. What the signature is would depend on the IFF mod. Based on availability, if they even had the IFF capability, they would be in the Mod 1-3 range, which only provides basic information. Modes 4-5 provide more detailed information on the aircraft, and cartels would certainly not have this.

That said, if one were to operate a sophisticated operation, one could easily become a "joker" or "faker" to appear as a civilian airliner(s) on the open network with prior authorization from government officials without causing any issue to ATC, not to mention in international waters.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So Canada intends to enter another nation's sovereign airspace without permission, hence the F-35 as opposed to less stealthy fighters?



op:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I think that he meant the aircraft could stay incognito to drug ships, etc by flying along normal routes and appearing as a civilian airliner to the ship vice actually fooling a host nation ATC...



Flying in airways will also limit the ability to localize and track a contact.  Once you find something it is better to hold it and hand it off.   

Even with the best passive technologies, there are times you can't remain overt and at high altitudes.  There are other things you do in those cases.


:2c:


----------



## SupersonicMax

G2G,

Canada precisely did this in Iraq (1991),  Yugoslavia (1999), Libya (2011) and as far as I know Syria (2015).

Based on this trend, I say there is a good possibility it may happen again in the next 40 years.

Bird_Gunner:  I wasn't sarcastic.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Flying in airways will also limit the ability to localize and track a contact.  Once you find something it is better to hold it and hand it off.
> 
> Even with the best passive technologies, there are times you can't remain overt and at high altitudes.  There are other things you do in those cases.
> 
> 
> :2c:



Agree. Being completely visible and letting suspected cartel ships/aircraft know you're watching them is a valid strategy as well.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Agree. Being completely visible and letting suspected cartel ships/aircraft know you're watching them is a valid strategy as well.



And then there is the trickier middle ground; covert and unnoticed.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> G2G,
> 
> Canada precisely did this in Iraq (1991),  Yugoslavia (1999), Libya (2011) and as far as I know Syria (2015).
> 
> Based on this trend, I say there is a good possibility it may happen again in the next 40 years.
> 
> Bird_Gunner:  I wasn't sarcastic.



I could see two modes of entering another nation's airspace: 1) conducting missions deliberately against an adversary, where "low (multi-spectral) visibility" (stealth) would be a tactical advantage, or 2) conduct of covert operations with an intent to deny involvement in the area.  If you mean that Canada needs the technology in the case of 1) above, then I concur with your assessment/logic.  I'm hoping you don't mean 2) as that is not in keeping with Canada's (general) perspective of above board/declared operations.

Regards
G2G


----------



## SupersonicMax

Nope, don't mean 2 at all!


----------



## Spencer100

The P-1 is looking to give the P-8 some competition.

http://aviationweek.com/blog/kawasaki-p-1-flies-air-tattoo 

Nice pictures in the article, for those who have not seen it before.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile India buying more P-8s:



> India To Buy 4 P-8s...
> 
> The Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), the highest body in the MoD that decides weapons procurement, cleared the purchase of additional P-8I aircraft Tuesday on a government-to-government basis to top the eight already contracted in 2009.
> 
> The Indian Navy last year invoked the option clause in the contract under which it could order four additional P-8Is. The P-8I is the Indian variant of the P-8A...
> http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2015/07/15/india-boeing-p8-maritime-surveillance/30181931/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Zoomie

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Flying in airways will also limit the ability to localize and track a contact.  Once you find something it is better to hold it and hand it off.
> 
> Even with the best passive technologies, there are times you can't remain overt and at high altitudes.  There are other things you do in those cases.


Somewhat of a necro post.  High and overt is something that happens quite frequently in the war against drugs.  The low and slow (ie P-3) get their target information from somewhere - right? ;-)

Flying in the high environment outside of sovereign airspace is actually un-monitored.  Most countries can see maybe 100nm off their coast - and that is primarily SSR for the civilian controllers.  It's quite easy to disappear up amongst the blue skies.  Most probably those at sea level can't even see those operating in the high flight levels.


----------



## CougarKing

More Poseidons on the way, including 4 for Australia.

Defense News



> *20 More P-8s for US, Australia Ordered From Boeing*
> By Christopher P. Cavas 12:59 a.m. EST January 29, 2016
> Boeing P-8A Poseidon
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON — The Boeing Company received a hefty $2.5 billion contract award from the US Navy to provide that service with 16 more P-8A Poseidon maritime multi-mission aircraft, *along with four P-8As for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF)*, the Pentagon announced Thursday.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

More to add to the Poseidon's sub-killing power:

Defense News



> *Boeing Showcases New Sub-Hunting Missile*
> Lara Seligman, Defense News 6:36 p.m. EDT May 18, 2016
> 
> WASHINGTON — Boeing showed off its newest sub-killing missile this week at the annual Sea-Air-Space conference, a flying torpedo that will enable the Navy’s P-8 Poseidon to hunt enemy submarines from great heights.
> *
> The HAAWC, which stands for High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon Capability, is an add-on kit for the Navy’s Mark 54 lightweight torpedo* that gives the weapon the ability to glide through the air high above the clouds. Boeing is aiming to have the technology on the Navy’s submarine-hunting P-8 in 2017, according to company representatives.
> 
> The HAAWC kit turns the torpedo into a miniature jet, complete with wings, a tail and a GPS-guided navigation system. Once it nears the water, the kit peels off and the system activates a parachute that lowers the weapon to the water. The engine then starts and the missile begins its run toward its target.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## cupper

Not sure if missile is the right term.

Looks and sounds more like the JDAMS kit they use on bombs to provide a smart function guidance package to a dumb bomb.


----------



## Kirkhill

cupper said:
			
		

> Not sure if missile is the right term.
> 
> Looks and sounds more like the JDAMS kit they use on bombs to provide a smart function guidance package to a dumb bomb.



The original missile:







Unguided.  Unpowered.


----------



## cupper

Well Played.  [


----------



## Kirkhill

;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Wait for the counter to this;  something like a GPS-jammer buoy.

Question;  what is the backup for when one of the key systems goes U/S?  Or will they just be unable to 'do anything'?

We are getting more and more behind the 8-ball on things IMO.


----------



## h3tacco

The back-up is inertial. There is sufficient accuracy to get the weapon from the aircraft to the splash point without a GPS fix.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Thing is EITS, submarines don't drag a signal-jaming buoy behind them, or release them along the way as they proceed somewhere. In both instances, that would be leading the predator to the prey.

And they wouldn't do it as they detect an airplane either, if they ever do manage to spot a Poseidon at that altitude.

Much more probability of using counters to evade the torp once it is in the water than to try and fool the drop guidance system.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

check!


----------



## Sub_Guy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Thing is EITS, submarines don't drag a signal-jaming buoy behind them, or release them along the way as they proceed somewhere. In both instances, that would be leading the predator to the prey.
> 
> And they wouldn't do it as they detect an airplane either, if they ever do manage to spot a Poseidon at that altitude.
> 
> Much more probability of using counters to evade the torp once it is in the water than to try and fool the drop guidance system.



Well frig me sideways.   Care to share your knowledge with my SIM operators.  I have been saying this for years. :sarcasm:   Decoys galore in our sim sessions.


----------

