Author Topic: CP-140 Aurora  (Read 218201 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 275,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,021
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: CP-140 Aurora
« Reply #600 on: February 26, 2020, 18:27:09 »
10.  10 is not enough; we don't have enough now to meet all the FG/FE/FD demands.  LRP isn't doing any of the flying MAISR will do (we did some in Iraq...), but we don't do it as a matter of routine - IMPACT and OUP were "onsies". .  I don't know the CONOP for RPAs (does anyone?) but...unless we're getting something like RQ-4s...will they really be able to do what a manned MMA/LRPA can?  I say, no.  Heck they can't manage the Wx alone, let alone search/kill stores.

10 is not enough.  It might be what we get, because people don't know how to apply reality to "theory".  10 for FG/FE/FD....simply not enough.

I know the RAF is going to have 9 tails ( I think that was the final number...) but they do things a little different/have different realities that put different demands on their fleet.

Like, for one thing, the UK is about one-third the size of BC?

http://www.bcrobyn.com/2012/12/how-big-is-british-columbia/
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,396
Re: CP-140 Aurora
« Reply #601 on: February 26, 2020, 18:45:22 »
I get it, I think we all do.  10 isn’t enough.  Neither are 2 JSS, 4 SSK, or 85 fighters.  The list goes on and on.

If the option is 10 capable aircraft or 15 less capable aircraft, I’d take the 10.. 




Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 232,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,147
  • "crew, set condition Fun, rig for MAD..."
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: CP-140 Aurora
« Reply #602 on: February 26, 2020, 19:41:45 »
I get it, I think we all do.  10 isn’t enough.  Neither are 2 JSS, 4 SSK, or 85 fighters.  The list goes on and on.

If the option is 10 capable aircraft or 15 less capable aircraft, I’d take the 10..

Agreed.  I'm hoping the same (IMO, wrong) thinking doesn't happen that did when the Argus was replaced with the Aurora..."more capable = less number of units required". 
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 232,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,147
  • "crew, set condition Fun, rig for MAD..."
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: CP-140 Aurora
« Reply #603 on: February 26, 2020, 20:06:07 »
Like, for one thing, the UK is about one-third the size of BC?

http://www.bcrobyn.com/2012/12/how-big-is-british-columbia/

Yup, they don't have to spread a small fleet apart by thousands of kilometers.  And like Norway...they're very close to 'the pitch'. 
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline LoboCanada

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 170
Re: CP-140 Aurora
« Reply #604 on: February 27, 2020, 09:43:12 »
10.  10 is not enough; we don't have enough now to meet all the FG/FE/FD demands.  LRP isn't doing any of the flying MAISR will do (we did some in Iraq...), but we don't do it as a matter of routine - IMPACT and OUP were "onsies". .  I don't know the CONOP for RPAs (does anyone?) but...unless we're getting something like RQ-4s...will they really be able to do what a manned MMA/LRPA can?  I say, no.  Heck they can't manage the Wx alone, let alone search/kill stores.

10 is not enough.  It might be what we get, because people don't know how to apply reality to "theory".  10 for FG/FE/FD....simply not enough.

I know the RAF is going to have 9 tails ( I think that was the final number...) but they do things a little different/have different realities that put different demands on their fleet.

Perhaps 10 P-8s and 10 RPAs? New MQ-9 Skyguardian looks like it can take some of the P-8s job now:
https://genatomicsasi.com/general-atomics-promotes-un-manned-mpa-mission/
https://www.flightglobal.com/civil-uavs/new-maritime-capability-developed-for-mq-9/118327.article

10 full-time MPA P-8s that can be boosted with 10 RPAs. The 10 RPAs could be siphoned off for over-land use when needed, but have a primary MPA arctic mission.

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 22,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 595
Re: CP-140 Aurora
« Reply #605 on: February 27, 2020, 12:26:33 »
Perhaps 10 P-8s and 10 RPAs? New MQ-9 Skyguardian looks like it can take some of the P-8s job...

10 full-time MPA P-8s that can be boosted with 10 RPAs. The 10 RPAs could be siphoned off for over-land use when needed, but have a primary MPA arctic mission.

The P-8 and the Triton are intended to compliment each other.  Aside from the USN the Australuans have also decided on that option.

Edited to add: the option of mixing manned and unmanned may not actually save as much money as some people think.  You still need as many sensor operators and tacticians, and bandwidth isn't free.  So saying it is ok to have 10 MPAs if we tack on 10 RPAs is probably a non starter.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2020, 12:29:58 by Baz »

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 80,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,931
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: CP-140 Aurora
« Reply #606 on: February 27, 2020, 14:20:52 »
But see this:

US to ‘pause’ production of Australia’s Triton drones

The title of the latest issue of Australian Foreign Affairs asks, ‘Can we trust America?’ The case of the MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial system would suggest the answer is no.

The 2016 defence white paper named the Triton as one of its capability priorities for the future Australian Defence Force:

    To complement the surveillance capabilities of the [P-8A] Poseidon, the Government will acquire seven high altitude MQ-4C Triton unmanned aircraft from the early 2020s … The Triton is an unarmed, long-range, remotely piloted aircraft that will operate in our maritime environment, providing a persistent maritime patrol capability and undertaking other intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance tasks.

The supporting integrated investment program flagged a cost of $3–4 billion.

In June 2018, the government announced that it would ‘invest $1.4 billion and acquire the first of six Tritons’ (it’s not clear what happened to the seventh). That top-level figure also included $364 million in infrastructure, as well as ‘the necessary ground control systems, support and training required to implement a project of this nature’.

But this wasn’t going to be a straightforward commercial or foreign military sales purchase. The government also announced that ‘as part of this investment Australia will also enter into a $200 million cooperative program with the United States Navy for the development, production and sustainment of the MQ-4C Triton’. It wasn’t very specific on what we would get for our $200 million, but stressed that ‘Australia’s alliance with the US is our most important defence relationship, underpinned by strong cooperation in defence industry and capability development’ and asserted that ‘[t]his cooperative program will strengthen our ability to develop advanced capability and conduct joint military operations’.

In March 2019, the government announced it had approved acquisition of the second aircraft at a cost of ‘around $350 million’.

So that makes it decidedly awkward that the US Department of Defense budget papers for fiscal year 2021 announced a two-year ‘production pause in FY 2021 and FY 2022’ in the Triton program. The budget documents don’t state what is behind the pause. There are a range of potential factors, including finding funds to help build President Donald Trump’s border wall and to achieve the chimerical goal of a 355-ship fleet (noting that the budget reduces orders for new ships this year [emphasis added]).

The pause is unfortunate for Australia for several reasons. Our first Triton should be delivered before the pause takes effect, but overall the goal of initial operational capability in 2023–24 and final operational capability by 2025 look like taking a two-year hit. That’s the best-case future.

It could be worse. The US is much more willing to cancel programs than Australia is. And the wolves pick off the stragglers. Germany left the program earlier this year. The Triton has already suffered a 61% increase in development cost and a 70% increase in acquisition schedule, so with a two-year production pause on top of that plus the cost of restarting production, it’s looking more and more like an easy target for budget predators. There are no guarantees US Navy production will start up again, particularly if shipbuilding continues to need more cash (that last bit might sound familiar to Australian readers). That would leave us with one aircraft, a lot of infrastructure to support aircraft we won’t ever have, and a $200 million hangover.

It could be worse again. There’s some talk of Australia jumping in and filling the production gap by acquiring its remaining aircraft earlier. But this ‘opportunity’ may be a trap. When the production pause occurs, the US Navy will have received 14 of the 65 originally planned aircraft. If the US doesn’t continue the acquisition program, Australia may be on the hook for one-third of the future spiral development costs of a total fleet of around 20 aircraft.

Even worse, the US Navy may well decide it’s not worth operating its rump fleet and cancel everything, leaving Australia in the impossible position of holding six or seven orphan aircraft and the entire future cost of supporting the capability after we’ve gone all in for $3–4 billion. The sunk cost fallacy suggests it could be better to cut our losses and get out now, even if we have spent hundreds of millions already.

...the Triton is a very expensive aircraft, more even than the F-35 [emphasis added]. It may be an unmanned system, but it is more like a traditional manned platform in that its exquisite capability makes it exquisitely expensive, resulting in very small numbers in our inventory. The Iranians managed to shoot down its sibling, the Global Hawk, so the Chinese may well be able to handle a Triton. A fleet of six doesn’t allow for losses, but do we want to stock up on more at a cost of hundreds of millions each?...
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/us-to-pause-production-of-australias-triton-drones/


Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.