• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Boeing to offer P-8 as CP-140 Replacement

KevinB said:
Why?
I’m solely asking because down here we have timetables and pathways for exactly that.

I came across a paper written by a CAF Major about various process in this.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct, it is a defined term.

IOC: The minimum ability to effectively employ a new or improved capability for which adequate infrastructure, training, staffing and support is in place, both for the new capability and the organization that is employing it. (Project Approval Directive)

What that means specifically for each project is perhaps what you mean, @SupersonicMax, but what an IOC provides and needs to do so, is qualified by definition.

One aspect the PAD didn’t go into in too much detail is what kind of capability can be establied prior to IOC/FOC. In some cases, an ‘initial capability’ was defined in a case by case basis for some projects. In all cases that I know where ‘initial capability’ was referred to, it was a specific qualification and quantification of capabilities that required notable, temporary augmentation to the project during the early portion of the IMPL phase.
 
SupersonicMax said:
For a fighter, IOC may mean, in part, being capable to employ X missile. Doesn’t quite work for a tank.
Click to expand...
I get that. But I’m talking about timeframes and milestones.
You can’t use boilerplate (well you can but it totally FUBAR stuff), and when things also have R&D components that offer leads to drift based on TRL.
 
KevinB said:
I get that. But I’m talking about timeframes and milestones.
You can’t use boilerplate (well you can but it totally FUBAR stuff), and when things also have R&D components that offer leads to drift based on TRL.
Click to expand...
Canada could do well to consider what its allies do in that realm of acqusition. It doesn’t bridge lower (1-3) to mid-stage TRLs (4-6) well into the near-operational stage (7-9) for implementation into production capabilities. ADM(S&T)/DRDC does a great job in the mids (4-6), but seems content there and has a hard time working with operators to push through the latter TRLs. Maybe worth seeing how the US addresses the TRL 7-9 world with DARPA and IDIQ contracts to probe the art of the technologically and operationally ‘doable’ before going full-on acquire?
 
We do a terrible job on small $ ACAT III programs, in my experience.
There is often an over expectation of TRL, when a TRL 3-4 system is reported to be 7+

In all services there seems to be an acceptable belief that if it’s an ACAT III that if we botch it, we can just get something else later.

I don’t have a lot of time with ACAT II and I programs, but they seem to be handled significantly better - but I may be missing the forest from the trees.
 
KevinB said:
We do a terrible job on small $ ACAT III programs, in my experience.
There is often an over expectation of TRL, when a TRL 3-4 system is reported to be 7+

In all services there seems to be an acceptable belief that if it’s an ACAT III that if we botch it, we can just get something else later.

I don’t have a lot of time with ACAT II and I programs, but they seem to be handled significantly better - but I may be missing the forest from the trees.
Click to expand...
Canada doesn’t do much better with MRs, if it’s any consolation. Yeah, Is and IIs will generally be better done in that there’s more ‘discipline’ (or at least an established process to be followed, for good or bad), especially for an MDAP (essential similar to Canada MCP - major capital project). As well, at least with the ACaT Is and IIs, the State by State participation in MDAPs is a known quantity m/thing, while regionalism and the fluid nature of ITB and VP policy in Canada contributes to more uncertainty and ‘lack of unity of effort’ shall we say.
 
Eye In The Sky said:
To add to Dimsums mention of assisting in monitoring the sono field...in theory, thinking like a dry sensor type, put a decent surface search radar on it, and a EOIR ball....you'd be able to extend those 'sensor bubbles' and do concurrent "on tops" of anything you might want to investigate. These seem, to me at least, as enablers/enhances in the "detect/deter" game. I'd take gas over the weight of any ESM system...

I'd even look at putting a MAD system on the RPAs, or 1 on every 2 or 3 systems, but only if the trade off in fuel/endurance is minimal. I think MSA (multi-static acoustics) is the future; MAD is a "feel good/confirmatory" sensor, not a great "search" sensor. My 2 cents, which is worth about 1 cent. :)

I see modern airborne ASW going the way the USN is moving/have moved to; higher altitude flight profile for the majority of the time. Descending and climbing (1) reduces endurance (fuel burn) and (2) decreases RF range (monitoring the pattern). Better to keep the mothership up high....(this is just me thinking off the top of my head about TTPs, while sitting here).

My quick/dirty opinion on the current P8 layout (I've been in them), there would be room for a dual console (I'm picturing the TWC on the Cyclone) to add in a workstation setup for an 2 x additional "AES OPs" to operate 2 x ASW "wingpersons"; with the speed things happen in ASW, I'd want direct control of those systems, with next-to-zero time delay and complete OPCON to the TAC/Skipper on the mothership. Off the top of my head, I am visualizing 1 x MPA with 2 x Wing"person"'s.

Search stores; MPA and RPA carried and dispensed. Kill stores; MPA only (initially). v1 to v2 T & E would include 'remote kill stores' options.

Thru AAR and larger crew sizes, return our LRP aircraft to the crew day length the Argus crew had. They did, we could do it again.

Again...me completely spitballing off the top my head as I type (I wish we were doing this now, and I was part of the project!).
Click to expand...

So RPA(AASW) would need
-search stores
-EOIR, surface search radar
-perhaps MAD on a few systems
-Ability to do a handshake OPCON between the ground station and MPA for real-time control of the asset


Employment would look like
-MPA up high to oversee the situation
-RPA is used to deploy search stores down low (increases time in the air for the MPA up high)
-RPA increases sensor bubble
-MPA used to do any weapons deployment

I could see one or two RPA deploying a pattern (even without OPCON on the MPA) while the MPA stands off as the "white hat" supervising and looking out. Has the advantage of the RPA going perhaps into a less permissible environment while the MPA stays outside of it.
 
That is a decent start point for employment. I’m also a firm believer MPAs should have MAD, the weight trade off nowadays for a MPA is negligible. I didn’t include ESM because I haven’t looked at “lightweight” systems.

Also some Limitations of RPAs to consider; weather degrades them (icing, winds). Most of them operate fairly high - I have no data/clue on fuel burn at the 5000’ and below altitudes. Sono’s (assuming G size) would be carried externally - what this would look like and how it would add to drag/fuel burn is unknown.

Range - how far away from land would they be employed? Is there a need for a RPA “carrier/short deck”?
 
Eye In The Sky said:
Range - how far away from land would they be employed? Is there a need for a RPA “carrier/short deck”?
Click to expand...
Depends if you're expecting LOS, BLOS, etc.

Physical range/combat radius might mean you don't need to deploy from ships - an MQ-9 flew from Grand Forks ND to 78N, circled around a bit, and returned for a 25.5h mission last Sep. Granted its endurance will be lower with weapons, etc but still probably enough to deploy from the same bases as the associated MPA.

The MQ-25 Stingray expects to have their pilots on the carrier in OSINT articles. However, with BLOS, they could be anywhere.
 
Good2Golf said:
Absolutely correct, it is a defined term.

IOC: The minimum ability to effectively employ a new or improved capability for which adequate infrastructure, training, staffing and support is in place, both for the new capability and the organization that is employing it. (Project Approval Directive)

What that means specifically for each project is perhaps what you mean, @SupersonicMax, but what an IOC provides and needs to do so, is qualified by definition.

One aspect the PAD didn’t go into in too much detail is what kind of capability can be establied prior to IOC/FOC. In some cases, an ‘initial capability’ was defined in a case by case basis for some projects. In all cases that I know where ‘initial capability’ was referred to, it was a specific qualification and quantification of capabilities that required notable, temporary augmentation to the project during the early portion of the IMPL phase.
Click to expand...
That definition of IOC leaves a lot of room for PMs to maneuver. It is not something tangible that can be practically applied to every project have have consistent timelines come from it. How that definition is applied differs from project to project.
 
Particularly in large projects with significant CISOE, IOC can be well into equipment delivery, training development and implementation and other aspects.

So, for example, new aircraft requiring new facilities and changes to airfields may have quite late IOC dates due to time lags in preparing and sequencing construction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kirkhill
Mucking around in the Irish Sea - Critical Infrastructure
Replies
1
Views
409
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Joint Force Arsenal
3 4 5
Replies
93
Views
80K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
C
The Case for AEW&C Aircraft
2
Replies
37
Views
37K
GR66
GR66
Eye In The Sky
Germany Halts P-3 Mission System upgrade as MPA Alternatives Examined
Replies
2
Views
11K
lenaitch
lenaitch
MarkOttawa
Tornado replacement: Luftwaffe to get Eurofighters, Super Hornets and Growlers?
Replies
16
Views
18K
LiveFightMove
LiveFightMove
Back
Top