CMMA - replacing the CP140 Aurora

[Edward Campbell]

Off topic and Geezer eruption

It's fairly important to remember that the C-17s, the Chinooks, the newish C-130Js and the new Leopard tanks were all purchased, by direction, by one Minister of National Defence. In the process, he made himself wildly unpopular with the entire bureaucracy, from PCO on down, with the military, especially, the CDS of the day, who was both publicly and politically very popular, and with the PM and PMO.

Gordon O'Connor told the CDS that he (O'Conor) didn't give a flying fig about the CDS' views on equipment: it was the government's responsibility to equip the military, the CDS is allowed to advise ... that's it. Constitutionally, O'Connor was 100% correct.

O'Connor told the supply and procurement bureaucrats that they didn't need "competition." Anyone and everyone, he said, knew that there was no practical alternative to any of the C-17, Chinook, C-130J or Leopards. They knew it too, he said, and all they needed was enough balls to make the right decisions .. or just get out of his way.

To the PM and PMO he is reputed to have said something like: "It's our war, now, and they are our sailors, soldiers and flyers and we are responsible for their very lives. If we send them to their deaths in G-Wagons rather than proper APCs and tanks then you, Stephen Harper, must meet every flippin' flight that brings their bodies home and you must explain your choices to every widow and mother."

Gordon O'Connor was, in my view, the best MND since Brooke Claxton (1946-54) who, against the united, coordinated wishes of his admirals and generals, built the military force that Canada needed ... as opposed to the one that the admirals and generals wanted.

Claxton was a success because he was doing what the PM of the day wanted and that PM expected his ministers run their own departments. O'Connor failed, politically, because he had neither public nor top-level political support for doing the right things. O'Connor was, still and all, a better MND than all of Paul Hellyer, Bud Drury, Kim Campbell, Bill Graham, Peter MacKay, Harjit Sajjan and Anita Anand combined.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Thought I'd throw something in on this thread.

From Feb 2022: https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public...roject_request_for_information_02.10.2022.pdf

Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), on behalf of the Department of National Defence (DND), is seeking input from industry and other stakeholders on the High Level Mandatory Requirements (HLMR) and capability requirements pertaining to the replacement of the CP140 Aurora fleet, including industry’s interest, capability and experience to provide a long-range, long-endurance, multi-mission aircraft that meet these requirements.

Entitled Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft (CMMA), this replacement aircraft will be required by the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) to provide the following minimum operational capabilities, which are defined in Annex A:

• Search and Rescue (SAR);
• Command, Control, Communications, Computers (C4), Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) (C4ISR);
• Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW);
• Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW);
• Communications Relay;
• Network Extension; and
• Overland Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR). (defined some more in Annex A)

The effort that will result in replacement of this fleet, known as the CMMA Project, will directly support the following Defence Policy Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE) Initiatives, outlined at https://www.canada.ca/en/department...policies-standards/canada-defence-policy.html:

• #49 - Acquire next generation multi-mission aircraft (CP140 Aurora maritime patrol aircraft replacement); and
• #67 - Invest in Joint Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) platforms, including next generation surveillance aircraft.

In addition, CMMA Project will also indirectly support the following Defence Policy SSE Initiatives:

• #62 - Acquire joint command and control systems and equipment, specifically for integrated information technology and communications;
• #68 - Integrate existing and future assets into a networked, joint system-of-systems that will enable the flow of information among multiple, interconnected platforms and operational headquarters;
• #72 - Establish a Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) targeting capability to better leverage intelligence capabilities to support military operations; - - - #106 - Enhance the mobility, reach and footprint of the CAF in Canada’s North to support operations, exercises, and the CAF ability to project force into the region; and
• #111 - Modernize North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) to meet existing challenges and evolving threats to North America, taking into account the full range of threats.

From Annex C - OPTIONS BEING CONSIDERED (HLMR = high level mandatory requirements)

The options that are being considered during Options Analysis (OA) by the CMMA Project as viable solutions are:

- Buy MOTS. A single new manned Military off-the Shelf (MOTS) aircraft fleet would be procured that meets all HLMRs, with minimal or no modification required.

- Buy and Modify MOTS. A single new manned MOTS aircraft fleet would be procured that meets all HLMRs, with moderate change or modification required.

- Buy COTS and Develop into MOTS. A single new manned Civilian off-the-Shelf (COTS) aircraft fleet would be procured that meets HLMR 4 (Coverage), with major modification required to develop it into a military platform that meets all HLMRs.

- Buy 2 x MOTS. Two fleets of new manned MOTS aircraft that share a common airframe but have different configurations would be procured. Together this mixed fleet would meet all HLMRs, with minimal or no modification required.

- Buy MOTS and UAS. A fleet of new manned MOTS aircraft and a fleet of new Unmanned Air Systems (UAS) would be procured. Together this mixed fleet would meet all HLMRs, with minimal or no modification required.

 

[Photopilot]

A decision should be made sometime around 2040.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

A decision should be made sometime around 2040.

Maybe a little bit earlier...this wheel is turning, just not in a way that anyone (who shouldn't) can hear the squeaks in the background...

 

[GR66]

Thought I'd throw something in on this thread.

From Feb 2022: https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public...roject_request_for_information_02.10.2022.pdf

Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), on behalf of the Department of National Defence (DND), is seeking input from industry and other stakeholders on the High Level Mandatory Requirements (HLMR) and capability requirements pertaining to the replacement of the CP140 Aurora fleet, including industry’s interest, capability and experience to provide a long-range, long-endurance, multi-mission aircraft that meet these requirements.

Entitled Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft (CMMA), this replacement aircraft will be required by the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) to provide the following minimum operational capabilities, which are defined in Annex A:

• Search and Rescue (SAR);
• Command, Control, Communications, Computers (C4), Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) (C4ISR);
• Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW);
• Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW);
• Communications Relay;
• Network Extension; and
• Overland Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR). (defined some more in Annex A)

The effort that will result in replacement of this fleet, known as the CMMA Project, will directly support the following Defence Policy Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE) Initiatives, outlined at https://www.canada.ca/en/department...policies-standards/canada-defence-policy.html:

• #49 - Acquire next generation multi-mission aircraft (CP140 Aurora maritime patrol aircraft replacement); and
• #67 - Invest in Joint Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) platforms, including next generation surveillance aircraft.

In addition, CMMA Project will also indirectly support the following Defence Policy SSE Initiatives:

• #62 - Acquire joint command and control systems and equipment, specifically for integrated information technology and communications;
• #68 - Integrate existing and future assets into a networked, joint system-of-systems that will enable the flow of information among multiple, interconnected platforms and operational headquarters;
• #72 - Establish a Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) targeting capability to better leverage intelligence capabilities to support military operations; - - - #106 - Enhance the mobility, reach and footprint of the CAF in Canada’s North to support operations, exercises, and the CAF ability to project force into the region; and
• #111 - Modernize North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) to meet existing challenges and evolving threats to North America, taking into account the full range of threats.

From Annex C - OPTIONS BEING CONSIDERED (HLMR = high level mandatory requirements)

The options that are being considered during Options Analysis (OA) by the CMMA Project as viable solutions are:

- Buy MOTS. A single new manned Military off-the Shelf (MOTS) aircraft fleet would be procured that meets all HLMRs, with minimal or no modification required.

- Buy and Modify MOTS. A single new manned MOTS aircraft fleet would be procured that meets all HLMRs, with moderate change or modification required.

- Buy COTS and Develop into MOTS. A single new manned Civilian off-the-Shelf (COTS) aircraft fleet would be procured that meets HLMR 4 (Coverage), with major modification required to develop it into a military platform that meets all HLMRs.

- Buy 2 x MOTS. Two fleets of new manned MOTS aircraft that share a common airframe but have different configurations would be procured. Together this mixed fleet would meet all HLMRs, with minimal or no modification required.

- Buy MOTS and UAS. A fleet of new manned MOTS aircraft and a fleet of new Unmanned Air Systems (UAS) would be procured. Together this mixed fleet would meet all HLMRs, with minimal or no modification required.

This is one of those situations where the CAF/GOC seems to pretend we live in glorious isolation. MOTS, modified MOTS, new design based on COTS, two different MOTS, MOTS and UAS. Is ANY option being left off the table?

Let's see...what are our major defence partners using?

USA? P-8
UK? P-8
Australia? P-8
New Zealand? P-8
Germany? P-8
Norway? P-8
South Korea? P-8
India? P-8?

At any point does someone say "All of our major allies are using the P-8. It's a proven, existing platform. It would give us commonality and interoperability as well as shared logistics potential. Are there any deal breakers with the P-8 which make it unsuitable for Canada as well? No? Then lets go with the P-8".

 

[rmc_wannabe]

This is one of those situations where the CAF/GOC seems to pretend we live in glorious isolation. MOTS, modified MOTS, new design based on COTS, two different MOTS, MOTS and UAS. Is ANY option being left off the table?

Let's see...what are our major defence partners using?

USA? P-8
UK? P-8
Australia? P-8
New Zealand? P-8
Germany? P-8
Norway? P-8
South Korea? P-8
India? P-8?

At any point does someone say "All of our major allies are using the P-8. It's a proven, existing platform. It would give us commonality and interoperability as well as shared logistics potential. Are there any deal breakers with the P-8 which make it unsuitable for Canada as well? No? Then lets go with the P-8".

Whoa whoa whoa whoa......


Have you thought about how that kind of logic impacts Bombardier and the rest of our robust defense aviation industry...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

This is one of those situations where the CAF/GOC seems to pretend we live in glorious isolation. MOTS, modified MOTS, new design based on COTS, two different MOTS, MOTS and UAS. Is ANY option being left off the table?

Let's see...what are our major defence partners using?

USA? P-8
UK? P-8
Australia? P-8
New Zealand? P-8
Germany? P-8
Norway? P-8
South Korea? P-8
India? P-8?

At any point does someone say "All of our major allies are using the P-8. It's a proven, existing platform. It would give us commonality and interoperability as well as shared logistics potential. Are there any deal breakers with the P-8 which make it unsuitable for Canada as well? No? Then lets go with the P-8".

It is usually the way we do procurement of aircraft systems; I mean, just look at the Cyclone...we just did what our biggest Allies are....errr

 

[YZT580]

This is one of those situations where the CAF/GOC seems to pretend we live in glorious isolation. MOTS, modified MOTS, new design based on COTS, two different MOTS, MOTS and UAS. Is ANY option being left off the table?

Let's see...what are our major defence partners using?

USA? P-8
UK? P-8
Australia? P-8
New Zealand? P-8
Germany? P-8
Norway? P-8
South Korea? P-8
India? P-8?

At any point does someone say "All of our major allies are using the P-8. It's a proven, existing platform. It would give us commonality and interoperability as well as shared logistics potential. Are there any deal breakers with the P-8 which make it unsuitable for Canada as well? No? Then lets go with the P-8".

Unfortunately, the P-8 is not the most ideal for SAR and our current fleet is hopelessly inadequate so we need two fleets

 

[dimsum]

It is usually the way we do procurement of aircraft systems; I mean, just look at the Cyclone...we just did what our biggest Allies are....errr

I hate to defend the Cyclone, but it’s not like all of our allies were using the same platform either.

Lots of countries use lots of different MH. Meanwhile, the P-8 is used by 4 of the 5 Eyes, plus other allies.

 

[suffolkowner]

What is the alternative? The Japanese plane? Seems like more of a slamdunk than the Airbus 330? And have the rules not been refined to require an operational system in use by our allies? Pretty sure Ive read that a couple of times

 

[KevinB]

I hate to defend the Cyclone, but it’s not like all of our allies were using the same platform either.

Yet not one of those use the Cyclone…
[sarcam]Orphan fleet for the win [/sarcam]

Lots of countries use lots of different MH. Meanwhile, the P-8 is used by 4 of the 5 Eyes, plus other allies.

Well 2 others use 60’s, but yes pick a unique bespoke platform and wonder why it has cost overruns And issues.

 

[Zoomie]

Better hurry up - Boeing is shutting down P8 line “soon”, IOT start cranking out E7 wedgies

 

[Good2Golf]

Unfortunately, the P-8 is not the most ideal for SAR and our current fleet is hopelessly inadequate so we need two fleets

I thought we were talking ASW/MPA/LRP?

And besides, a flying P-8 would seem to be better at maritime SAR than a non-flying CC-295…

 

[YZT580]

View attachment 75061
I thought we were talking ASW/MPA/LRP?

And besides, a flying P-8 would seem to be better at maritime SAR than a non-flying CC-295…

We are but SAR was part of the solicitation request.

 

[FSTO]

We are but SAR was part of the solicitation request.

Was that a mistake to put SAR at the top of the list?

 

[GR66]

Unfortunately, the P-8 is not the most ideal for SAR and our current fleet is hopelessly inadequate so we need two fleets

We are looking for a multi-role aircraft. It's unlikely that any single airframe will be IDEAL for any one of the requirements compared to a dedicated single-role aircraft. The question is whether the P-8 is good enough (or can be made good enough) for the SAR role in addition to the other roles we're wanting it for.

That's where my initial question "Are there any deal breakers with the P-8 which make it unsuitable for Canada as well?" comes in to play.

If the shortcomings in the P-8's SAR capabilities are in fact a deal breaker in meeting Canada's requirements, then go ahead and look at other options. That might be a different single airframe solution (if one exists without capability shortcomings that are "deal breakers" in any of the other required roles) or possibly two separate platforms.

My point is, rather than treating every new acquisition as a "clean sheet" project we should instead look first at what is already in widespread use with our allies and rule them out first as unsuitable before we go looking at bespoke options.

 

[Spencer100]

We are looking for a multi-role aircraft. It's unlikely that any single airframe will be IDEAL for any one of the requirements compared to a dedicated single-role aircraft. The question is whether the P-8 is good enough (or can be made good enough) for the SAR role in addition to the other roles we're wanting it for.

That's where my initial question "Are there any deal breakers with the P-8 which make it unsuitable for Canada as well?" comes in to play.

If the shortcomings in the P-8's SAR capabilities are in fact a deal breaker in meeting Canada's requirements, then go ahead and look at other options. That might be a different single airframe solution (if one exists without capability shortcomings that are "deal breakers" in any of the other required roles) or possibly two separate platforms.

My point is, rather than treating every new acquisition as a "clean sheet" project we should instead look first at what is already in widespread use with our allies and rule them out first as unsuitable before we go looking at bespoke options.

Yes the deal breaker is Boeing. There is a Quebec family that is still very upset.

 

[GR66]

Yes the deal breaker is Boeing. There is a Quebec family that is still very upset.

When they field a product that can meet all the requirements then I'll care how upset they are.

 

[Spencer100]

When they field a product that can meet all the requirements then I'll care how upset they are.

It has nothing to do about them selling something they make. It's now about the total destruction of Canada ever having a global OEM airframer. Boeing started the ball rolling and it lead to the implosion of the company.