CMMA - replacing the CP140 Aurora

[Eye In The Sky]

they get chipped away by political/financial constraints.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

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’ll give you my #s.

Line x 2 Sqns, 5 each, total 10

Trg Sqn, 2

FD Sqn, 2

14 total that are serviceable or at 1st line (temp U/S)

6 in the maint/mod cycles 2nd line +.

20 total

The “they are more capable so we need less”
argument is just not true. Anyone who claims it doesn’t understand the fleet IMO.

 

[KevinB]

I’ll give you my #s.

Line x 2 Sqns, 5 each, total 10

Trg Sqn, 2

FD Sqn, 2

14 total that are serviceable or at 1st line (temp U/S)

6 in the maint/mod cycles 2nd line +.

20 total

The “they are more capable so we need less”
argument is just not true. Anyone who claims it doesn’t understand the fleet IMO.

I spitballed 34, to have 16 operational 24/7 for my napkin Army.

Looking at Canada’s geography, and potential support to operations outside of Canada, I think 20 is still way too few.

That said I suspect 20 is the number we would accept down here as a minimum RCAF acquisition. Anything less proves Canada isn’t even serious about its own territory let alone external operations

 

[Good2Golf]

I spitballed 34, to have 16 operational 24/7 for my napkin Army.

Looking at Canada’s geography, and potential support to operations outside of Canada, I think 20 is still way too few.

That said I suspect 20 is the number we would accept down here as a minimum RCAF acquisition. Anything less proves Canada isn’t even serious about its own territory let alone external operations

So like a single P-8 VP Sqn then?

 

[SupersonicMax]

I’ll give you my #s.

Line x 2 Sqns, 5 each, total 10

Trg Sqn, 2

FD Sqn, 2

14 total that are serviceable or at 1st line (temp U/S)

6 in the maint/mod cycles 2nd line +.

20 total

The “they are more capable so we need less”
argument is just not true. Anyone who claims it doesn’t understand the fleet IMO.

The number shouldn’t be based on how many Squadrons we have/want but on the number of aircraft we need to accomplish our mandate.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The number shouldn’t be based on how many Squadrons we have/want but on the number of aircraft we need to accomplish our mandate.

Great. What is our mandate? I’ve been in the fleet for a while and I’ve never heard it. “Go places, find stuff”? The problem I have with mandates is ours change with elections.

We have historically had the pretty same FG, Fzg and FD org. Let’s at least give those Sqns the plans they needed yesterday and will need tomorrow. My numbers aren’t perfect but they are certainly are better than “8-12”.

 

[CBH99]

I’ll give you my #s.

Line x 2 Sqns, 5 each, total 10

Trg Sqn, 2

FD Sqn, 2

14 total that are serviceable or at 1st line (temp U/S)

6 in the maint/mod cycles 2nd line +.

20 total

The “they are more capable so we need less”
argument is just not true. Anyone who claims it doesn’t understand the fleet IMO.

Random question - but how arduous would it be to convert a civilian 737 to a P8 standard?

 

[dapaterson]

If there's no production line open - insanely expensive.

For the A330 MRTT, for example, Airbus converts new or used A330-200 aircraft to the MRTT standard.

 

[CBH99]

If there's no production line open - insanely expensive.

For the A330 MRTT, for example, Airbus converts new or used A330-200 aircraft to the MRTT standard.

That is actually what sparked my question.

I was thinking if Airbus can convert A330-200 aircraft to MRTT standard, can Boeing not do the same for 737 aircraft to P8 standard?

If so, we could buy ‘8-12’ aircraft if the winds are in favour of it - and either buy a few 737’s here & there to be converted/grow the fleet, or keep the most recently upgraded planes around for a bit to help supplement the P8.

 

[dapaterson]

The production line would have to remain open.

But I'm not certain whether Boeing is taking the same approach - building "normal" 737-800s, then converting, or if the differences between the default 800 and the P-8 (generators, wingtips etc) are sufficient that they build the P-8s different from the ground up.

Either way, Boeing has strongly signalled that once current orders are complete, they are closing the P-8 line.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Random question - but how arduous would it be to convert a civilian 737 to a P8 standard?

I have no idea but after seeing challenges upgrading a P-3 fleet in Blocks I would want not much to do with it. A lot of PITAs.

 

[Zoomie]

No room for 5x737NG at QQ. Maybe they go and hide out with the A330 fleet?

 

[dimsum]

No room for 5x737NG at QQ. Maybe they go and hide out with the A330 fleet?

Next CAF headline:

407 Sqn moves to Vancouver International Airport

And yes, there is (somewhat) precedent:

RCAF Station Sea Island

RCAF Station Sea Island was established beside the Vancouver Airport on July 22, 1940 under the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan.

seaislandhome.org

 

[Eye In The Sky]

No room for 5x737NG at QQ. Maybe they go and hide out with the A330 fleet?

They had to build 8 Hgr at RCAF Station Summerside to hold the Argus. They could do something like that again. They just need the will; it’s clear with the amount of money thrown around the last several years Canada has the money… building new hangers is exactly what the RAF did at Lossie.

This Is Our New Strategic Facility | Did you know that it took £100m and one million manhours to build our new Strategic Facility? Designed and built by Boeing and local construction... | By RAF Lossiemouth | Facebook

Did you know that it took £100m and one million manhours to build our new Strategic Facility? Designed and built by Boeing and local construction...

fb.watch

 

[dimsum]

They had to build 8 Hgr at RCAF Station Summerside to hold the Argus. They could do something like that again. They just need the will; it’s clear with the amount of money thrown around the last several years Canada has the money… building new hangers is exactly what the RAF did at Lossie.

This Is Our New Strategic Facility | Did you know that it took £100m and one million manhours to build our new Strategic Facility? Designed and built by Boeing and local construction... | By RAF Lossiemouth | Facebook

Did you know that it took £100m and one million manhours to build our new Strategic Facility? Designed and built by Boeing and local construction...

fb.watch

I think @Zoomie is suggesting that YQQ doesn’t have the space to fit hangars in. It’s a bit constricted there.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I think @Zoomie is suggesting that YQQ doesn’t have the space to fit hangars in. It’s a bit constricted there.

Not if current Hgrs are consolidated into a single super hanger; the current 14 Wing Comd is rumoured to have this vision for ZX and I’d love to see it happen. Anything like this of course would be incredibly expensive; can 7 Hgr even handle a P-8?

I also believe it will happen the day after I become CDS…

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I spitballed 34, to have 16 operational 24/7 for my napkin Army.

Looking at Canada’s geography, and potential support to operations outside of Canada, I think 20 is still way too few.

That said I suspect 20 is the number we would accept down here as a minimum RCAF acquisition. Anything less proves Canada isn’t even serious about its own territory let alone external operations

I was in Kadena a few years back, and chatting with a guy from the incoming VP replacing the one rotating out. We were talking P-3 vice P-8 and I was asking lots of questions on serviceability rates etc as their P-8 fleet matures.

At one point I mentioned we had “14 Auroras”. He said “where?” to which I replied “total, that is how many we have in our Air Force”.

He paused for a second, took a drag off his smoke, looked at me and said

“Why bother?”

 

[dimsum]

I was in Kadena a few years back, and chatting with a guy from the incoming VP replacing the one rotating out. We were talking P-3 vice P-8 and I was asking lots of questions on serviceability rates etc as their P-8 fleet matures.

At one point I mentioned we had “14 Auroras”. He said “where?” to which I replied “total, that is how many we have in our Air Force”.

He paused for a second, took a drag off his smoke, looked at me and said

“Why bother?”

To be fair, he would say the same to any other operator of those aircraft.

It’s not like Australia or the UK is getting hundreds of them either.

The US military’s sheer amount of “stuff” is mind-boggling. AMARC, their worldwide logistics bases, etc. There is nothing like it.

This sheer amount of stuff/people and their recruiting/training system also means that they’re used to having comparatively lots of people doing the same job that we would with fewer people. I’m not talking about us tacking in more jobs; I mean that they don’t really cross-train their folks as much as they could (or maybe should).

 

[Eye In The Sky]

To be fair, he would say that to any other operator of those aircraft.

It’s not like Australia or the UK is getting hundreds of them either.

Truth! I was quick to point out the number of P-3s The Saints had.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I spitballed 34, to have 16 operational 24/7 for my napkin Army.

Looking at Canada’s geography, and potential support to operations outside of Canada, I think 20 is still way too few.

That said I suspect 20 is the number we would accept down here as a minimum RCAF acquisition. Anything less proves Canada isn’t even serious about its own territory let alone external operations

When MAG was “real”, it had 31-33 MPAs (‘107s)…I’d go as far to say we were envied by some Allies back then.