CMMA - replacing the CP140 Aurora

[Good2Golf]

Case of beer! And if you are close to Windsor we drink it together (optional)

You’re on! Case of beer - Spencer wins if Canada goes Bombardier, G2G wins if we get P-8s. Windsor…I know a few folks in Baby Detroit, could make it a road trip!

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Anyone care to name a country that uses the Saab Swordfish MPA or any that are on order?

external torps - our torpedoes have specific environmental tolerances that must be maintained. The only other thing I will say is you don’t want things like hail or birds hitting the forward part of a torp at the speeds MPAs fly.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I guess technically the Swordfish might(?) meet the CMMA requirements, but did Bombardier submit a response to the RFI? If not, then what they hell are they complaining about?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

How many C-27 MPAs are there out there now?

 

[SupersonicMax]

Anyone care to name a country that uses the Saab Swordfish MPA or any that are on order?

Has that ever stopped us from buying something? (Cyclone and Kingfisher anyone?)

external torps - our torpedoes have specific environmental tolerances that must be maintained. The only other thing I will say is you don’t want things like hail or birds hitting the forward part of a torp at the speeds MPAs fly.

To be fair, we have similar limitations with missiles but it doesn’t stop us from flying with them externally.

 

[GR66]

Has that ever stopped us from buying something? (Cyclone and Kingfisher anyone?)

To be fair, we have similar limitations with missiles but it doesn’t stop us from flying with them externally.

And neither of those were even built by Bombardier!

But seriously, does anyone know if Bombardier/SAAB even responded to the RFI? If not then they really should STFU rather than whine when a company actually pursuing the contract puts forward proposals.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Has that ever stopped us from buying something? (Cyclone and Kingfisher anyone?

True, I just think our allies care more about our MPAs than they do those fleets.

)

To be fair, we have similar limitations with missiles but it doesn’t stop us from flying with them externally.

Likely not the same fuel and same tolerances, but I’m not up to speed on fighter Ordnance. AAM are designed to travel thru the air at extraordinary speeds; torps…not so much. We have a heated BB for a reason.

Drag is also a factor; ONSTA time is important, it’s not unheard of to have transit to/from our area that is several hours. I’ve done 12hr missions that are 4/4/4.

 

[Good2Golf]

And neither of those were even built by Bombardier!

But seriously, does anyone know if Bombardier/SAAB even responded to the RFI? If not then they really should STFU rather than whine when a company actually pursuing the contract puts forward proposals.

Meh.

Leonardo complained when the Chinook was downselected for MHLH.

PWGSC asked Leonardo how much the Cormorant’s hook was rated to carry the 4600kg gun? Ans: 4000kg max. Apparently Leonardo had a hard time with math.

I don’t expect Bombardier to behave any differently.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Anyone actually interested in details on operational capabilities, high level mandatory requirements, etc - go to the link below and read thru Annex A and B. This should help guide thoughts on platforms like the Saab Swordfish, P-8, etc.

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2022/02/10/40e474721d25ec41e82e2941aa3754f5/canadian_multi-mission_aircraft_project_request_for_information_02.10.2022.pdf

Consider a bombbay a requirement.

RFI submission deadlines and requirements have been public since the doc above was released.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

How many sonobouys and torpedoes can it deploy?

Zero. It doesn’t exist.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Just to comment on the “icing at high altitudes” part. Icing doesn’t always or only happen at high altitude. It’s more dependant on where the freezing level is at, generally speaking.

A MPA would “climb thru” the FL on the transit to their op area at high altitude. As it gets close, it will decend to a lower altitude to do things like drop sono’s, RADAR search, do the S part of SAR, etc. sometimes it might stay below the FL, or climb thru/decent back thru the FL multiple times to reposition, maintain RF coverage, conducts comms, etc.

Icing can happen fast and accumulate quickly and shedding it uses energy. Some de-icing can be done with things like engine bleed air, some is done with electrical power. Generating that power burns fuel. Ice creates drag and weight which requires more power which burns more fuel.

Any amount of time you can use On Station is valuable, whether it’s prosecuting a submerged contact, SAR, ISR, etc.

Icing is never going to increase your ONSTA time.

* sorry if that is a bit “Capt Obvious”; I just figure many folks aren’t familiar with LRP flying.

 

[Spencer100]

You guys are all correct.

My point was that the specs are meaningless if things get political.

To my spidersense if Bombardier is talking about it they have something in their head. One they are happy that they just deliveried the first new build E-11A to the USAF. They have started Bombardier Defence market something they did not do in the past. I was told in the long past from an Ottawa friend the deal for government money on the airliner programs they were not to develop a defence side of the house. They had a little but no big programs or defence only products to sell. IE they sold the missile division to Thales. The government did not want to have a large defence contractor they would have to support with orders, money etc. Using the defence budget to support an aerospace prime was not seen as a good idea. Plus having a population of people and workers that support the defence budget is not good for the post nation state. Example GDLS Canada. You know if the current government could have blown up the plant they would have. They inherented the Saudi contact. They criticized in opposition but had to live with it because of the London MP are liberals and Unifor told them they had to keep the plant open. So those ridings with major defence employers and plant in them like defence budgets. (See US defence industry base) So to keep plants you have to export and/or buy them yourselves. As they foresaw things like decades earlier so they did not want a aerospace OEM with a large defence side.
There are reasons things are like they are in Canada.

Ok back to the story. Bombardier just has just one product to sell now Globals. Governments are their biggest customers. Middle Eastern Oil dictators being a large one. Many many countries use them. VIP transport being the largest usage. But they have been sold to the USAF as the E11A BACN. To the RAF as the Sentinal (older) etc.

So Bombardier a tiny shadow of its old self is free of the any No defence side deals and wants in. I was surprised when they put out a press release saying they were marketing Bombardier Defence Division. That is something they never did. They did always say their platforms could be used for defence missions. SAR, VIP, etc. They never had a Defense division marketing products. Yes they did have defence services marketing training and MRO.

Anyways that's what I see. Plus the closeness of that company to the leadership makes me think there is more afoot.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Maybe they can put this card up their sleeve for
Something they really want down the road from the current GoC. If they felt they had something the met the HLMRs, they could have submitted a response to the RFI.

Just like anyone else…but maybe, they assessed their “MPA” loaded with all the stores and avionics and people and fuel wouldn’t meet the HLMR.

 

[KevinB]

You guys are all correct.

My point was that the specs are meaningless if things get political.

The issue is it is Political, but not just Internal Canadian Politics.

Your landlord is requiring a new security deposit.

 

[Kirkhill]

Just to comment on the “icing at high altitudes” part. Icing doesn’t always or only happen at high altitude. It’s more dependant on where the freezing level is at, generally speaking.

A MPA would “climb thru” the FL on the transit to their op area at high altitude. As it gets close, it will decend to a lower altitude to do things like drop sono’s, RADAR search, do the S part of SAR, etc. sometimes it might stay below the FL, or climb thru/decent back thru the FL multiple times to reposition, maintain RF coverage, conducts comms, etc.

Icing can happen fast and accumulate quickly and shedding it uses energy. Some de-icing can be done with things like engine bleed air, some is done with electrical power. Generating that power burns fuel. Ice creates drag and weight which requires more power which burns more fuel.

Any amount of time you can use On Station is valuable, whether it’s prosecuting a submerged contact, SAR, ISR, etc.

Icing is never going to increase your ONSTA time.

* sorry if that is a bit “Capt Obvious”; I just figure many folks aren’t familiar with LRP flying.

As a passenger in Turbo-Props in northern latitudes I can state categorically that my most interesting flights have been sitting in window seats when props and wings start to shed ice. I didn't know the fuselages were armoured..... They are armoured aren't they?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

As a passenger in Turbo-Props in northern latitudes I can state categorically that my most interesting flights have been sitting in window seats when props and wings start to shed ice. I didn't know the fuselages were armoured..... They are armoured aren't they?

Somewhat, yes.

 

[Kirkhill]

Somewhat, yes.

Thank God!

 

[MTShaw]

Anyone actually interested in details on operational capabilities, high level mandatory requirements, etc - go to the link below and read thru Annex A and B. This should help guide thoughts on platforms like the Saab Swordfish, P-8, etc.

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2022/02/10/40e474721d25ec41e82e2941aa3754f5/canadian_multi-mission_aircraft_project_request_for_information_02.10.2022.pdf

Consider a bombbay a requirement.

RFI submission deadlines and requirements have been public since the doc above was released.
View attachment 75569

I have given a first glance and was just going post it. I don’t know if the P-8 apprpriate because we either don’t know or can’t state the planes actually capabilities.

Should make a fun process to watch.

But people here really, really like the P-8.

we have bought off the shelf for some stuff. But as I said way way above, I don’t think this will be MOTS.

 

[Spencer100]

The issue is it is Political, but not just Internal Canadian Politics.

Your landlord is requiring a new security deposit.

I would believe this is the thinking "The landlord can shovel it!" We just put in an order for the F-35 at great political cost so we are good for ten or so years. Plus thanks for thinking about us heading up a Haiti mission. We have Top Men, Top Men I tell you working on it now. We'll get back to you. Ukraine we just sent stuff so we're good. NORAD radars stuff ok we will put something in a future budget but you are still on the hook for most of it. Anything else? Yes. Sorry got go Convene something we'll call you back. LOL

PMO office high fives all around. Success!

 

[dimsum]

My point was that the specs are meaningless if things get political.

Sure, then Boeing will counter-sue that we weren't following the High Level Mandatory Requirements.

Also, unlike other situations (C-27 vs C-295, F-35 vs Gripen, etc) their proposal doesn't even exist. Swordfish is not really a thing - it was quietly shelved in 2018 with no working model, and the Global 6500 is flying as a completely different role. The GoC could (and should) easily say "ok, please show me the full working model, not a developmental concept, of your proposal that you can build within the next few years."

Oh, I want in on this bet too. I'll even bring a case of the good, craft stuff.