• 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

ytz said:
Take out "100% Space based system"? You have no idea what that means. We're talking hundreds of satellites. Nobody is going to be able to take out all of that without causing Kessler Syndrome. Also it's.actually easier to replace a satellite than an E-7. This is not well understood. In a system like this they are continuously manufactured and have the ability to surge production to fill gaps. They will also have on-orbit spares.

I would still argue for the E-7 and I think some aspects of Golden Dome are nuts. But Space Based - MTI will definitely develop.



What does GPS jamming have to do with space based radar? GPS is easy to jam because the signal is weak. Space Based Radar is still radar. Jamming it is going to be closer to jamming a traditional radar than GPS.
Click to expand...
I had this argument with Eurocontrol: the boffins assured me that GPS was failsafe and didn't need the redundancy of another system and actively sought to eliminate ILS and VOR systems. Guess what: they were wrong. I am not advocating for no space I am advocating for redundancy of systems.
 
ytz said:
The Globaleye has a thing on the roof that makes it hard to place a boom receptacle there. They could, in theory, have their own refuelling probe and do hose and drogue. I would feel so sorry for the pilots in that situation.

Fundamentally the Globaleye is just not well designed for Canada. It's well designed for Europe where an airfield with lots of gas is always 15 mins away and 360 coverage is irrelevant because you can fly patterns that always keep the giant migraine to the left or right of the aircraft.
Click to expand...
I would prefer to just get E-7 however, it seems the political winds have basically mandated us into some kind of Global business jet based platform.
 
KevinB said:
Well the bigger question is if Congress will accept that. I tend to doubt they will.

The E2 is slow and doesn’t have a 10th of the sensor capabilities of the E-7. While Space Based assets are nice, they have some vulnerabilities.
Click to expand...
E2 also doesn’t have any range. It would require a dedicated tanker.
 
ytz said:
I really hope we exercise our options and maybe consider a top up order on the P-8 before it goes out of production. Our currently planned fleet and squadrons are small.
Click to expand...
It is the curse of Canadian Defence procurement .
We tend to not only purchase less then absolute minimum but most often will cut those purchases to even smaller levels .
It's small wonder that our operatiing costs tend to exceed those of our allies operatiing similar equipment.
 
The way Canadian procurement works or so I was told. Is that a project office studies an issue and determines how many widgets, warships or tanks the military requires to do the job understand the bare minimum.
And they cut a little more .
It goes up the Department food chain and gets cut a little more or it gets sent back to be cut there.
At which point several Departments weigh in on the project. And every so often a Department you would think wouldn't have the slightest connection to National Security.
Time to continues to move on.
Treasury Board weighs in on the subject.
Too expensive cut some more.
Supply and Services looks at it " We'd like you to buy it from Country X." PMO , "Could you build it in A Government riding?" .
And the longer it takes the more inflation takes a bite out of your programme.
Or they , who ever they are actually stop making whatever it your buying. I can actually think of at least a half dozen times to various procurement projects.
The best example of increasingly small numbers could be the Canadian army's purchase of tanks. In the 1950's we purchased roughly 250 Centurion tanks...
I think it was Simmons who then wanted to purchase another 800 or so for the Milita armoured regiments, a replacement pools , training and a small war reserve. In 1977 we purchased 114 Leopard C I's .
Interesting thing we pissed off Kraus Maffi by purchasing the Leo I' They were in the midst of tearing the Assembly line down in order to produce the Leopard II.
And they had to delay in order to produce our our order.
And then we have the current MBT that we're currently using the Leopard II in 3 different and distinct variations. And that with little more the a hundred tanks.
Pricy to say the least.
It not that we're not spending enough although more would be both helpful and quite frankly very necessary. But we really have to spend it far better.
Repeat after me , Microfleets are a really, really bad idea. And we really are our own worst enemy.
 
GK .Dundas said:
The way Canadian procurement works or so I was told. Is that a project office studies an issue and determines how many widgets, warships or tanks the military requires to do the job understand the bare minimum.
And they cut a little more .
It goes up the Department food chain and gets cut a little more or it gets sent back to be cut there.
At which point several Departments weigh in on the project. And every so often a Department you would think wouldn't have the slightest connection to National Security.
Time to continues to move on.
Treasury Board weighs in on the subject.
Too expensive cut some more.
Supply and Services looks at it " We'd like you to buy it from Country X." PMO , "Could you build it in A Government riding?" .
And the longer it takes the more inflation takes a bite out of your programme.
Or they , who ever they are actually stop making whatever it your buying. I can actually think of at least a half dozen times to various procurement projects.
The best example of increasingly small numbers could be the Canadian army's purchase of tanks. In the 1950's we purchased roughly 250 Centurion tanks...
I think it was Simmons who then wanted to purchase another 800 or so for the Milita armoured regiments, a replacement pools , training and a small war reserve. In 1977 we purchased 114 Leopard C I's .
Interesting thing we pissed off Kraus Maffi by purchasing the Leo I' They were in the midst of tearing the Assembly line down in order to produce the Leopard II.
And they had to delay in order to produce our our order.
And then we have the current MBT that we're currently using the Leopard II in 3 different and distinct variations. And that with little more the a hundred tanks.
Pricy to say the least.
It not that we're not spending enough although more would be both helpful and quite frankly very necessary. But we really have to spend it far better.
Repeat after me , Microfleets are a really, really bad idea. And we really are our own worst enemy.
Click to expand...
Microfleets are the answer for official Ottawa however as its just enough to be SEEN doing something but not enough to DO anything with said Microfleet. Pensionable years all around and the Wife's in Ottawa are comfortable for another posting cycle. That is the way it has worked since about 1968 because if bad things happened the Americans would pick up the tab in blood and treasure. The thinking ones in Ottawa are probably losing sleep with Carneys intention and the bare cupboards with entrenched Ottawa ways.

Can we change and get serious ? To be seen.
 
GK .Dundas said:
The way Canadian procurement works or so I was told. Is that a project office studies an issue and determines how many widgets, warships or tanks the military requires to do the job understand the bare minimum.
And they cut a little more .
It goes up the Department food chain and gets cut a little more or it gets sent back to be cut there.
At which point several Departments weigh in on the project. And every so often a Department you would think wouldn't have the slightest connection to National Security.
Time to continues to move on.
Treasury Board weighs in on the subject.
Too expensive cut some more.
Click to expand...

Nah. This is urban legend inside the CAF.

It's way more direct than that. During the Harper era there was straight up direction. "No buying attrition reserves. Calculate the minimum fleet you need for ops. Ask for that."

That's policy set by government. Not by a bunch of directorates inside the CAF. Though I get why people think this, most of the CAF vastly overestimates the power some random Colonel/EX01 has as a director in one of the requirements staff. They do the analysis and provide options. The Generals brief up. The government picks.

Also, all the hate for TBS. I get it. But again, they are working stiffs doing what cabinet tells them to do. More people should be asking why the politicians impose this policy. Instead of shooting the messenger (TBS). The actual decision-makers are the TB part of TBS. Those are the politicians who literally pick the COA.

It's kinda wild today to be in an era where the government is simply looking to spend more. All of a sudden attrition reserves are fashionable. Heck, we might buy a whole second fighter fleet just to tell off the Yanks.
 
ytz said:
Nah. This is urban legend inside the CAF.

It's way more direct than that. During the Harper era there was straight up direction. "No buying attrition reserves. Calculate the minimum fleet you need for ops. Ask for that."

That's policy set by government. Not by a bunch of directorates inside the CAF. Though I get why people think this, most of the CAF vastly overestimates the power some random Colonel/EX01 has as a director in one of the requirements staff. They do the analysis and provide options. The Generals brief up. The government picks.

Also, all the hate for TBS. I get it. But again, they are working stiffs doing what cabinet tells them to do. More people should be asking why the politicians impose this policy. Instead of shooting the messenger (TBS). The actual decision-makers are the TB part of TBS. Those are the politicians who literally pick the COA.

It's kinda wild today to be in an era where the government is simply looking to spend more. All of a sudden attrition reserves are fashionable. Heck, we might buy a whole second fighter fleet just to tell off the Yanks.
Click to expand...
Yup. PM (or PMO of days past) tells TB President who guides Board and ensures the enforcers (TBS) keep all departments involved in line. DND is just one of theming departments presenting major caps to the Board (through the Secretariat). Every department seeks the Holy Grail to its submission, the highly vaunted TBS ‘Green Light’ (of staffing bliss).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Retired AF Guy
    • Like
Skies Magazine: Q&A with president of Boeing Canada
Replies
0
Views
3K
Retired AF Guy
Retired AF Guy
Eye In The Sky
    • Like
Boeing to offer P-8 as CP-140 Replacement
11 12 13
Replies
257
Views
156K
Eye In The Sky
Eye In The Sky
Eye In The Sky
Germany Halts P-3 Mission System upgrade as MPA Alternatives Examined
Replies
2
Views
13K
lenaitch
lenaitch
daftandbarmy
2023 Layoff Tracker: Latest Meta Cuts Could Hit 4,000
2
Replies
31
Views
41K
mariomike
mariomike
daftandbarmy
    • Like
The Management Myth
Replies
11
Views
25K
Brad Sallows
Brad Sallows
Back
Top