CMMA - replacing the CP140 Aurora

[MTShaw]

FSWAR: instead of buying the right one first, let’s building our own.

MRTT news:

Airbus A330 MRTT Certificated for Automatic Aerial Refueling - FLYING Magazine

Airbus' A330 MRTT is the first tanker in the world to be certificated for automatic air-to-air refueling boom operations during daylight, according to the aircraft manufacturer.

www.flyingmag.com

It is a plane that work.

KC-X Instead buying one that work, let’s build our own plane…so we can keep a 767 line open.

I’m actually stunned that the KC-46 has been this bad.

 

[Spencer100]

They’re the most used because it is was the only one. They are used in America by Americans because ‘Merica

I agree with the statement 737 opened the skies for manny people. And they did that without covering their landing gear.

My point is that Airbus is winning the single aisles and the single-aisle is where the action is for now. The 777 on the other hand is an amazing piece of engineering.

here is great video on the landing gear. It explains the engineering and reasons.

 

[MTShaw]

Thanks you for the video. My post stroke communication levels are full. Talk to you tomorrow.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

It’s good to see commonality in the airframe used not just by the USAF in different roles, but allied countries as well.

Makes planning and logistics a lot easier when everybody is showing up with the same airframe for certain tasks, i.e. P8

Used to be the case for us with P-3, and I’ve been on deployments the other countries kept us flying in a pinch. We will not have that option soon.

For the love of ***, I hope Canada just signs on to the P8 program as a customer. We can’t keep the P3 fleet flying forever, and it makes no sense to stuff Block 4 P3 aircraft full of expensive & capable gear if the airframe itself will be retired sooner vs later.

That is exactly what we’ve done. If what I’ve heard recently is accurate…well I am expecting I’ll retire in 8 years with 140s still part of the RCAF. We won’t be a credible ASW or MM platform; too few, too old…to unreliable.

I’ve flown Blocks 2, 3 and 4 and I honestly still love flying on her but…it’s retirement time. She’s done her part…

 

[FSTO]

That is exactly what we’ve done.

Who besides us are still flying the P3's?

We are fubard once again.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Who besides us are still flying the P3's?

We are fubard once again.

Brazil…Germany for a bit longer…

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Brazil…Germany for a bit longer…

Japan has a bunch…actually, I was surprised how many operators of the P3 that there still are.

 

[MTShaw]

Thanks you for the video. My post stroke communication levels are full. Talk to you tomorrow.

My impression of that video, beyond the specific engineering and some imaginative solutions, is that Boeing is a victim of its history lie all of us. And the post MD merger.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Japan has a bunch…actually, I was surprised how many operators of the P3 that there still are.

Ya, there’s more than the 2 I listed. But still, ours should be moving into that in-law suite and enjoying sunrise / sunsets between Bingo games soon.

 

[GR66]

Silly question. Is the retirement of the CP-140 strictly an airframe issue or are the mission systems (even with the Block IV upgrades) no longer meeting our requirements?

I know I'm going to regret even suggesting the idea of another Canadian "unicorn" design, but assuming it's not a systems issue could you install the Aurora systems in an Airbus A330? With us already getting the A330-MRTT you'd have the advantage of a common airframe.

The MRTT already has wings strengthened for their refueling pylons so I'm making the (totally uneducated) guess that the airworthiness testing requirements would be more about the fuselage changes than load issues. Airbus has presumably already done some work on designing some of the more mechanical systems (like a weapons bay and sonobuoy dispenser) in their proposed A319 MPA design.

Obviously a much larger airframe than the P-8 but also much greater range and presumably capability to carry more weapons and sonobuoys.

 

[dapaterson]

No. Do not build bespoke fleets. Your non recurring engineering costs are huge. And every time you have to swap out a system for a new, upgraded one, you incur those costs. Plus regression tests and flight tests and...

Buying an in service proven platform lets you leverage investments made by other partners, and gives a larger user demand, meaning supply chain issues will be reduced.

The virtual fleet model of the C-17 works. Canadianized unique fleets like the Cyclone and Aurora are expensive and create long term sustainability risk. Good for firms like Sikorsky and IMP, bad for taxpayers and the CAF.

 

[SupersonicMax]

The virtual fleet model of the C-17 works. Canadianized unique fleets like the Cyclone and Aurora are expensive and create long term sustainability risk. Good for firms like Sikorsky and IMP, bad for taxpayers and the CAF.

Our procurement model favours the canadianization as we define requirements and then companies offer solutions. When there is no off the shelf solutions to all our mandatory requirements (almost every single time), canadianization occurs where company offer modified versions of their already existing designs for a fringe customers. Looks great on paper but typically, given the complexity with those projects, it ends up being compromise after compromise. In the end, the aircraft is more expensive than off the shelf competitors and can typically do less.

That model is great to favour innovation for smaller projects but yields disasters for larger procurement projects…. As evidenced by the Cyclone and CC295…

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Silly question. Is the retirement of the CP-140 strictly an airframe issue or are the mission systems (even with the Block IV upgrades) no longer meeting our requirements?

The Mission systems are ok. I say ok because Block 3 had some issues and those weren’t fixed with Block 4 (different upgrades). We don’t have enough spares. The airframe is getting old. Replacing wings and empennage doesn’t solve all the “old plane” issues. They’re 40 years old, the spent a lot of time down low bouncing around etc.

I know I'm going to regret even suggesting the idea of another Canadian "unicorn" design, but assuming it's not a systems issue could you install the Aurora systems in an Airbus A330? With us already getting the A330-MRTT you'd have the advantage of a common airframe.

The MRTT already has wings strengthened for their refueling pylons so I'm making the (totally uneducated) guess that the airworthiness testing requirements would be more about the fuselage changes than load issues. Airbus has presumably already done some work on designing some of the more mechanical systems (like a weapons bay and sonobuoy dispenser) in their proposed A319 MPA design.

Obviously a much larger airframe than the P-8 but also much greater range and presumably capability to carry more weapons and sonobuoys.

Does it have a bombbay?

Putting mission systems in is a long and costly process. I’d avoid anything no designed for that configuration if it was me.

 

[CBH99]

Used to be the case for us with P-3, and I’ve been on deployments the other countries kept us flying in a pinch. We will not have that option soon.



That is exactly what we’ve done. If what I’ve heard recently is accurate…well I am expecting I’ll retire in 8 years with 140s still part of the RCAF. We won’t be a credible ASW or MM platform; too few, too old…to unreliable.

I’ve flown Blocks 2, 3 and 4 and I honestly still love flying on her but…it’s retirement time. She’s done her part…

Good

Silly question. Is the retirement of the CP-140 strictly an airframe issue or are the mission systems (even with the Block IV upgrades) no longer meeting our requirements?

I know I'm going to regret even suggesting the idea of another Canadian "unicorn" design, but assuming it's not a systems issue could you install the Aurora systems in an Airbus A330? With us already getting the A330-MRTT you'd have the advantage of a common airframe.

The MRTT already has wings strengthened for their refueling pylons so I'm making the (totally uneducated) guess that the airworthiness testing requirements would be more about the fuselage changes than load issues. Airbus has presumably already done some work on designing some of the more mechanical systems (like a weapons bay and sonobuoy dispenser) in their proposed A319 MPA design.

Obviously a much larger airframe than the P-8 but also much greater range and presumably capability to carry more weapons and sonobuoys.

It’s not a silly question at all. I’d reckon it’s actually a good question. Having a common airframe between the MRTT & MPA fleets would - in theory - have quite a few advantages.

It eliminates an entire training pipeline for pilots, mechanics & techs. It eliminates an entire supply line. And - in theory - it increases efficiency across the board.


But, like stated above by others with far more knowledge than I - in theory, and in practice, don’t always line up. I’ve learned over the years that technical details are usually far more complicated than one initially thinks.

Not a silly question/suggestion tho.

 

[CBH99]

Japan has a bunch…actually, I was surprised how many operators of the P3 that there still are.

Has the USN completely converted to the P8 now, or are there still a few P3’s waiting to be swapped out soon?

(I think there are still a few P3’s in use, although they may be used primarily for training now.)

 

[OldSolduer]

Japan has a bunch…actually, I was surprised how many operators of the P3 that there still are.

Are they selling any?

 

[Spencer100]

Good

It’s not a silly question at all. I’d reckon it’s actually a good question. Having a common airframe between the MRTT & MPA fleets would - in theory - have quite a few advantages.

It eliminates an entire training pipeline for pilots, mechanics & techs. It eliminates an entire supply line. And - in theory - it increases efficiency across the board.


But, like stated above by others with far more knowledge than I - in theory, and in practice, don’t always line up. I’ve learned over the years that technical details are usually far more complicated than one initially thinks.

Not a silly question/suggestion tho.

737 is too small for the VVIP fleet and the MRTT role. Plus you need to pay for all the engineering for tanking. Not cheap. And for less capability.

Since both MRTT and the P-8 are based on airliners. The whole system of training, repair MRO is very different than say a fighter or even a C-17.

There will hundreds of P-8 and thousands of 737.

There are hundreds of A330.

So those fleets would fine.

Also I don't think you will have a shortage of pilots wanting to fly those types. Highly sought after when they leave the service.

 

[CBH99]

Are they selling any?

We all know the odd flag officer peeks in on these discussions from time to time…

So you shush that mouth of yours there sir…

 

[dimsum]

Has the USN completely converted to the P8 now, or are there still a few P3’s waiting to be swapped out soon?

(I think there are still a few P3’s in use, although they may be used primarily for training now.)

A couple of reserve squadrons still use the P-3C.

There would still need to be some massive design changes (like gutting the inside of a kitchen reno) since the CP-140 seating arrangements and systems locations are different than the regular P-3.

 

[FSTO]

A couple of reserve squadrons still use the P-3C.

There would still need to be some massive design changes (like gutting the inside of a kitchen reno) since the CP-140 seating arrangements and systems locations are different than the regular P-3.

More work for IMP Halifax! (Not sure of the name nor the location of where the upgrades are being done)