CMMA - replacing the CP140 Aurora

[ytz]

I really hope we exercise our options and maybe consider a top up order on the P-8 before it goes out of production. Our currently planned fleet and squadrons are small.

 

[YZT580]

Take out "100% Space based system"? You have no idea what that means. We're talking hundreds of satellites. Nobody is going to be able to take out all of that without causing Kessler Syndrome. Also it's.actually easier to replace a satellite than an E-7. This is not well understood. In a system like this they are continuously manufactured and have the ability to surge production to fill gaps. They will also have on-orbit spares.

I would still argue for the E-7 and I think some aspects of Golden Dome are nuts. But Space Based - MTI will definitely develop.



What does GPS jamming have to do with space based radar? GPS is easy to jam because the signal is weak. Space Based Radar is still radar. Jamming it is going to be closer to jamming a traditional radar than GPS.

I had this argument with Eurocontrol: the boffins assured me that GPS was failsafe and didn't need the redundancy of another system and actively sought to eliminate ILS and VOR systems. Guess what: they were wrong. I am not advocating for no space I am advocating for redundancy of systems.

 

[Rainbow1910]

The Globaleye has a thing on the roof that makes it hard to place a boom receptacle there. They could, in theory, have their own refuelling probe and do hose and drogue. I would feel so sorry for the pilots in that situation.

Fundamentally the Globaleye is just not well designed for Canada. It's well designed for Europe where an airfield with lots of gas is always 15 mins away and 360 coverage is irrelevant because you can fly patterns that always keep the giant migraine to the left or right of the aircraft.

I would prefer to just get E-7 however, it seems the political winds have basically mandated us into some kind of Global business jet based platform.

 

[Nvlgzr]

Well the bigger question is if Congress will accept that. I tend to doubt they will.

The E2 is slow and doesn’t have a 10th of the sensor capabilities of the E-7. While Space Based assets are nice, they have some vulnerabilities.

E2 also doesn’t have any range. It would require a dedicated tanker.

 

[Greene]

Looking good! Poseidon #1 is taking shape.

Department of National Defence

Our future CP8A Poseidon fleet is starting to take shape! ✈️ Today marks an important milestone as production began on our first new Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft (CMMA). The aircraft’s fuselage...

www.facebook.com

 

[GK .Dundas]

I really hope we exercise our options and maybe consider a top up order on the P-8 before it goes out of production. Our currently planned fleet and squadrons are small.

It is the curse of Canadian Defence procurement .
We tend to not only purchase less then absolute minimum but most often will cut those purchases to even smaller levels .
It's small wonder that our operatiing costs tend to exceed those of our allies operatiing similar equipment.

 

[ytz]

^ This is supposed to change as part of the new strategy. Hoping that applies to some current orders.

 

[GK .Dundas]

The way Canadian procurement works or so I was told. Is that a project office studies an issue and determines how many widgets, warships or tanks the military requires to do the job understand the bare minimum.
And they cut a little more .
It goes up the Department food chain and gets cut a little more or it gets sent back to be cut there.
At which point several Departments weigh in on the project. And every so often a Department you would think wouldn't have the slightest connection to National Security.
Time to continues to move on.
Treasury Board weighs in on the subject.
Too expensive cut some more.
Supply and Services looks at it " We'd like you to buy it from Country X." PMO , "Could you build it in A Government riding?" .
And the longer it takes the more inflation takes a bite out of your programme.
Or they , who ever they are actually stop making whatever it your buying. I can actually think of at least a half dozen times to various procurement projects.
The best example of increasingly small numbers could be the Canadian army's purchase of tanks. In the 1950's we purchased roughly 250 Centurion tanks...
I think it was Simmons who then wanted to purchase another 800 or so for the Milita armoured regiments, a replacement pools , training and a small war reserve. In 1977 we purchased 114 Leopard C I's .
Interesting thing we pissed off Kraus Maffi by purchasing the Leo I' They were in the midst of tearing the Assembly line down in order to produce the Leopard II.
And they had to delay in order to produce our our order.
And then we have the current MBT that we're currently using the Leopard II in 3 different and distinct variations. And that with little more the a hundred tanks.
Pricy to say the least.
It not that we're not spending enough although more would be both helpful and quite frankly very necessary. But we really have to spend it far better.
Repeat after me , Microfleets are a really, really bad idea. And we really are our own worst enemy.

 

[DBNSG]

The way Canadian procurement works or so I was told. Is that a project office studies an issue and determines how many widgets, warships or tanks the military requires to do the job understand the bare minimum.
And they cut a little more .
It goes up the Department food chain and gets cut a little more or it gets sent back to be cut there.
At which point several Departments weigh in on the project. And every so often a Department you would think wouldn't have the slightest connection to National Security.
Time to continues to move on.
Treasury Board weighs in on the subject.
Too expensive cut some more.
Supply and Services looks at it " We'd like you to buy it from Country X." PMO , "Could you build it in A Government riding?" .
And the longer it takes the more inflation takes a bite out of your programme.
Or they , who ever they are actually stop making whatever it your buying. I can actually think of at least a half dozen times to various procurement projects.
The best example of increasingly small numbers could be the Canadian army's purchase of tanks. In the 1950's we purchased roughly 250 Centurion tanks...
I think it was Simmons who then wanted to purchase another 800 or so for the Milita armoured regiments, a replacement pools , training and a small war reserve. In 1977 we purchased 114 Leopard C I's .
Interesting thing we pissed off Kraus Maffi by purchasing the Leo I' They were in the midst of tearing the Assembly line down in order to produce the Leopard II.
And they had to delay in order to produce our our order.
And then we have the current MBT that we're currently using the Leopard II in 3 different and distinct variations. And that with little more the a hundred tanks.
Pricy to say the least.
It not that we're not spending enough although more would be both helpful and quite frankly very necessary. But we really have to spend it far better.
Repeat after me , Microfleets are a really, really bad idea. And we really are our own worst enemy.

Microfleets are the answer for official Ottawa however as its just enough to be SEEN doing something but not enough to DO anything with said Microfleet. Pensionable years all around and the Wife's in Ottawa are comfortable for another posting cycle. That is the way it has worked since about 1968 because if bad things happened the Americans would pick up the tab in blood and treasure. The thinking ones in Ottawa are probably losing sleep with Carneys intention and the bare cupboards with entrenched Ottawa ways.

Can we change and get serious ? To be seen.