- Reaction score
- 13,473
- Points
- 1,260
Fair, but there are a non-zero number of people that actually believe what you were joking about.I should have put in a lol emoji...
Lighten up, its a coffee and JD Shore Rum Cream morning.
CMMA - replacing the CP140 Aurora
- Thread starter Eye In The Sky
- Start date
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,327
- Points
- 1,160
I applaud your optimism.
- Reaction score
- 18,488
- Points
- 1,360
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.
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,178
- Points
- 1,040
FIFY
- Reaction score
- 18,488
- Points
- 1,360
If Uncle Sam didn’t care what we did on our own, I’m sure you’d be right. He cares to the extent that we say we are concerned about the security of the continental approaches, so I’m pretty sure the P-8s as a collective responsibility are going to happen and if we want to do our own industry support thing with MPA/LRP/non-ASW, he probably doesn’t care.
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
The real question is: are there any options that can be made in a special riding? DNDs requirements are the least of our concerns.Are there any other realistic options out there? What are your thoughts/preferences on a replacement? (If any)
(I feel like someone should ask you guys. I mean, apparently nobody asked the SAR techs what their thoughts were...)
Swordfish Multi-Role Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA)
Swedish company Saab introduced the Swordfish long-range, multi-role maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) mission system in February 2016.
www.naval-technology.com
Or do you mean lower, as in Washington?
- Reaction score
- 16,878
- Points
- 1,260
The Higher Authority may be lower geographically
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,178
- Points
- 1,040
They are making not new builds of the Dash 8. They may in the future but it won't be in the correct province.
I think you would see Globals with a L3 Wescam and a radar before anything else.
Or they outsource the job to Provincial Airlines. Lol
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,218
- Points
- 1,160
TC flies patrols for CCG/DFO. If the RCAF get the P-8, the government could throw Canadian Aerospace industry a bone by updating that fleet, and expanding it so they can handle more of the domestic tasks. Which would allow more offshore use of the P8's. Also replace and increase the numbers of Twin Otters. That should round out to 8 new almost all Canadian content airframes which actually compliment the RCAF mission rather than drag it down. Throw in some new gray TC owned helicopters for AOP's Arctic op support and the Aerospace lobby will be more or less happy.
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?
- Reaction score
- 13,473
- Points
- 1,260
Some countries use a version of it for MPA and ASW. I’m not convinced it’d be good to hunt subs but as an eye in the sky (heh)?
Maybe.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,327
- Points
- 1,160
What do you think the major issues are with the P-1? Cost? Lack of technical support among our allies? Political issues on our side? Political issues on the Japanese side? It certainly looks like an excellent platform. Any experiences working with them?
Not to be picky, but even Boeing on its website calls it the "P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft"
- Reaction score
- 13,473
- Points
- 1,260
The big red flag would be that the Japanese have not been able to sell military equipment since WWII. Their entire setup is geared towards supplying their own forces, and we would be the first (only?) international customer for something that only Japan uses.
Imagine trying to get spares, re-negotiating contracts with a company (yes they make commercial stuff too but that assumes the commercial and military sides work the same way or even talk to each other), making sure things are NATO standard (which they are not a part of)...
Contrast that with a 737-800 platform, which has spares around the world. If you can pull up to an international airport, likely you can get a tire or engine blade or random Bolt X.
- Reaction score
- 18,488
- Points
- 1,360
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 mean, true. Facts be facts.
I'm sure if the Army rolled a tank up to a target that couldn't actually shoot its main gun, then continued to demand on a loud speaker "Stop what you're doing, or we will stay here until someone else shows up to shoot!"
The bad guys might just eventually keep doing what they were doing...
We have become the Barney Fife of NATO with our single bullet in our breast pocket.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Not sure; but I don’t see the GoC coughing up the cost that will come with HAAWC. The only other way to achieve an effective wpn splash point is to be low. If you’re going to be low, have MAD - it could be your attack sensor. I’ve seen it pay for itself on Ex and Op, diesel and nuc’s.
Eg - I’ve seen a MAD barrier used while the acoustic system was undergoing IFTS to screen the force from a fairly capable SSK. It’s still a useful and accurate tool in the belt.
Invest in HAAWC, the MAD capability should look more like this to enable the “HA” part of HAAWC.
I do not see the GoC providing funds for HAAWC. So we need to maintain our current toolset. I am not sure on RAAF, RAF etc status on employing HAAWC.
Similar threads
