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

CMMA - replacing the CP140 Aurora

Personally, unless someone in the RCAF is publicly stating that we're getting 8-12 aircraft (which, AFAIK, no one did), I'd take those numbers with KFC-levels of salt.

There may be an article published in an unnamed newspaper dated on or about 14 Dec that points to a level slightly higher than the RCAF as the info source and specifically mentions 8 to 12 aircraft.

This information may or may not have been discussed at the last morning prayers before Christmas Leave.

Theory Is It Though GIF by PragerU
 
Not MPA…ASW. MPAs will likely be a second fleet built in Canada that does a lot of things but not chucking Mk.54 torpedos into the deep blue hunting down SSKs/SSGNs/…

I wouldn’t be surprised to see 10 P-8s and 12 deHavilland P-4s.

Personally, I break them out as:

MPA - can carry kill stores for surface/sub surface targets.

MSA (surveillance). No sub surface attack capability.

 
Would it be any good as a MPA?

I know a lot of folks weren’t too happy with it being selected for FWSAR…does it have any potential for ASW?
That’s literally what it does.

Numerous inferences in this thread about PAL and TC Dash-8s doing maritime surveillance tasks for the GoC - they are doing that on a civilian airliner adopted for that use. The 295 is purpose built for this task.

I suspect that we will be using these aircraft in littoral MPA roles within the decade.
 
the dehavilland actually makes a bit of sense except that it sets up yet another fleet for spares, training, maintenance etc. and we seem to have a shortage of people as it is. But even with hiving off the MPA tasks from the P8 we should still have more than 12 ASW a/c. That is only 4 per ocean. No adversary is going to make it easy by visiting one coast at a time

There is no “hiving off” MPA tasks. ASW is only one mission set the CMMA will perform, just like it is now with the Aurora.

12 aircraft doesn’t equal 4 per ocean. Some will be in 2nd and 3rd line maint. Some will be doing FG. 1 or more (likely 1) would be dedicated to FD.

Thankfully, for us, maritime approaches are part of NORADs mission. Anyone who wants to think about that for a few minutes can see some of the reasons that is important, was wanted and results of that addition to the NORAD mission.
 
Would it be any good as a MPA?

I know a lot of folks weren’t too happy with it being selected for FWSAR…does it have any potential for ASW?

Not ASW. But that is only one task a good MPA does.

If we maintain a single aircraft type to replace the Aurora, it is not the right aircraft.
 
Marketing to bite down into other markets.

The heart of the issue is can you prosecute an adversary’s sub or not. Dropping sternly worded letters or inclusive convening orders only goes so far…

I’d love to be able to add “or be the shooter in ASuW…” into that equation. Not holding my breathe, I don’t even think we will go HAAWC with the replacement due to cost.
 
Personally, I break them out as:

MPA - can carry kill stores for surface/sub surface targets.

MSA (surveillance). No sub surface attack capability.


Your word is good for me, EITS. 👍🏼 Do you know if Airbus has cracked the code on environmental control for torpedoes?

I’d love to be able to add “or be the shooter in ASuW…” into that equation. Not holding my breathe, I don’t even think we will go HAAWC with the replacement due to cost.

Not sure if your community still has dinosaurs, EITS…I had a 140 TACCO laugh at me for writing a “Why the CP-140 should have SLAM-ER.” paper on ASC. (I also discussed/recommended Harpoon as well). I learned a lot from writing that paper…both technically 👍🏼 AND institutionally 😔.
 
A few points:

With the Aurora fleet, we had 3 x CP140As at one point. The Arcturus. It was an Aurora minus the ASW systems and a better SS radar. Those aircraft maxed out their hours and are laid up or monuments now. But they were used heavily in SURPATs (surface patrols, part of the MPA tasks).

Nomenclature: MPA, LRPA,CMMA. MPA means different things to different people.

ASW is just one of many missions our LRP Sqns do. We have and continue to confuse ourselves and our identity with our own names swaps. VP was too American, MP was not broad enough so we adopted LRP. Our own identity crisis leads to confusion on what is the difference between a MPA and a MSA, MMA etc. in this thread we become bogged down some on “the name”; perhaps made worse because the project itself isn’t MPAA or LRPA replacement. People in the fleet have asked “are we changing to 4XX Multi Mission Sqn?”

To me, a MPA includes the ability to attack maritime surface and sub- surface hostiles. That is where/how I delineate.

But using those expensive to buy, expensive to operate and expensive to crew aircraft for ALL the needed tasks isn’t necessary; We still do SURPATs and the ASOs are usually pretty bored, for example. The same tasks can be done as effectively and more cost efficient with a smaller aircraft and crew.

MSAs don’t have to be limited to maritime only or DomOps only. Overland, SAR, ISTAR…all possible.

Just to cage brains again, here is what Canada is looking for from the CMMA:

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).
 
Your word is good for me, EITS. 👍🏼 Do you know if Airbus has cracked the code on environmental control for torpedoes?

No, but I’m “heads down” into things other than torps day to day.

Not sure if your community still has dinosaurs, EITS…I had a 140 TACCO laugh at me for writing a “Why the CP-140 should have SLAM-ER.” paper on ASC. (I also discussed/recommended Harpoon as well). I learned a lot from writing that paper…both technically 👍🏼 AND institutionally 😔.

I’d like to think after OUP and IMPACT none of those people exist…

Myopic thinkers almost saw the fleet dissolved.
 
Hopefully not listed in order of priority, otherwise the EO/IR system may not survive the requirements vetting… 😉
 
Hopefully not listed in order of priority, otherwise the EO/IR system may not survive the requirements vetting… 😉

2 things I am confident in:

1 - I will be CRA before the Aurora flies her final operational mission (my CRA is Oct 2030).

2 - when we get the CMMA we will put significant effort into making things that currently work for other Air Forces NOT work for us.
 
Ack, but you need to be prepped to use them one day…and the Nation needs to make them available to you to properly do the complete job.

My last ARMPAT was in the last quarter. We are maintaining with current systems.

Wonder where we are converting our current torps to 54s. Must be complete or near complete! 😆
 
Not sure if your community still has dinosaurs, EITS…I had a 140 TACCO laugh at me for writing a “Why the CP-140 should have SLAM-ER.” paper on ASC. (I also discussed/recommended Harpoon as well). I learned a lot from writing that paper…both technically 👍🏼 AND institutionally 😔.
I'm pretty confident those folks are out of uniform now.

I also suspect (probably wrong) that their laughter was because the Aurora is such an old platform that integration, etc costs would have been better used somewhere else.

But, in case people don't know what HAAWC and SLAM-ER are:


 
Is there some metric available that can provide what numbers of aircraft are required and what that is based on? Like what we have for the fighter jets?
 
I would be shocked if there wasn't.

Is it public? Probably not.
I mean those analysis should exist for every platform but do they and are they followed? Or do they get chipped away by political/financial constraints?
 
How many lines of tasking at what intensity and what concurrency, plus FG, plus FD, plus light maintenance cycles, plus heavy maintenance cycles, plus anticipated losses.
 
Back
Top