CP-140 Aurora

[aesop081]

Mark,

"coast guard" those are key words......

We are not looking at replacing a coast guard airplane but and air force warplane. Theres more to the CP-140s mission than looking at who is out there and looking for polluters.

there are other options out there that have some merit, susch as the MRA4 Nimrod, the MPA320 (german and itlian joint project as a P-3 replacement based off an A320ER, I read somewhere about some smaller nations using small business jets and out fitting them with the proper equipment.

Smaller nations dont have the giant expanses of ocean and land to patrol that we do.  Some of those smaller nations dont have the need to support their navy in ASW and ASuW operations.  As for the Nimrod MRA 4, it isnt an option that has merrit.

 

[observor 69]

More FYI:

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/002310.html

Umm, according to this,

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2004/01/12/daily13.html

The 737 is Boeings best seller, and the Next-Gen 737 (on which the P8 is based) have been continuously updated.

On using the 767, while there is some merit to having a longer-ranged aircraft for this role, the 767 is, on average, twice as expensive as a 737 to buy and operate.

The USN seems to think that slow speed and low altitude operations aren't as important anymore, and would rather have an aircraft that can cruise higher (read larger sensor footprint), and faster (more area coverage).

The speed advantage is negligible? 440kts vs 330kts is a third faster. I wouldn't call that negligible.

The old prop P3 is not as fuel efficient as a 737, not even close. Plus, four, old props require a lot more maintenance than two, new turbofans.

Posted by Smitty | September 12, 2005 7:20 PM

 

[MarkOttawa]

prom: As for business jets for maritime missions, Bombardier has a finger in that pie too (Challenger, Global)--but again the question is the mission:
http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=3_0&lang=en&file=/en/3_0/3_1/3_1_2.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Spencer100]

Australia uses the Dash 8 (Q) for its coastwatch program.  Some other countries also use the Dash 8 for maritime watch too.  The coastwatch program is run by a private company.  I do not think it is in the same league as what we do with our Auroras

http://www.customs.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=4238

 

[aesop081]

  I do not think it is in the same league as what we do with our Auroras

Indeed it is not.

its not even the same sport

 

[observor 69]

Lots of info here:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/p8-poseidon-mma-longrange-maritime-patrol-and-more-02980/

Many people would contend that the P-3 Orion is the greatest maritime patrol aircraft ever flown. These aircraft entered service in 1959 and will continue to serve past 2011, accepting modifications to their equipment that have sharpened their capabilities, and even given them a land-attack and surveillance role. In service with 15 countries, the Orion is a great success – but it's a very old success, and a replacement is needed.

The P-8A has emerged from the P-7 LRAACA program that was begun in 1988. That program originally envisaged an improved P-3G design, but program cost overruns and interest in opening the competition to commercial designs led to cancellation of the P-7 program in 1990. The successor MMA program was begun in March 2000, and Boeing beat Lockheed's "Orion 21" for the contract with a design based on the ubiquitous 737 passenger jet.

Filling the P-3 Orion's shoes will be no easy task. What missions will the new P-8A Poseidon face? What do we know about the platform, the project team, and ongoing developments? And will the P-3's level of global customer coverage give its successor a comparable level of export opportunities? Or has the market shifted in the interim?

This is DID's FOCUS Article concerning the P-8A Poseidon Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft, and it will be updated as events and contracts are announced. In the latest news, Australia has made it official by announcing an A$ 4 billion program to buy the P-8A…

The Controversy: Turboprop, or Turbofan Jet?
P-8A Poseidon: Platform & Capabilities
The P-8's BAMS Companion: Kicking It Up a Notch
P-8A Poseidon: Program & History
P-8A Poseidon: Contracts & Events
News & Analysis: India's Interest, and Broader Export Potential
Additional Readings & Sources: Platforms & Program Background
Additional Readings & Sources: News & Updates

 

[MarkOttawa]

An excellent post by Babbling Brooks on this and broader procurement issues:

A failure of planning and foresight: blame the politicians
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/09/failure-of-planning-and-foresight-blame.html

And, if the government could afford two types of planes (plus UAVs):

Marine pollution surveillance aircraft
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/12/marine-pollution-surveillance-aircraft.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[navig8ur]

The Block 2 programme is further ahead than many think.  Three airframes, 105, 106, and 108 are completed with three in-plant for mods.  As well, the Integrated Avionics trainer is fully modified with Block 2.  As one might expect there are some structural issues with an aircraft introduced in the early 80's; however, it is not as bad as widely thought.  ASLEP is not the only option to extend the life of the aircraft and other partial options are available such as the SSI K process, which changes various structural components extending the life of the airframe.  ASLEP is undoubtedly the most cost effective option in the long run as it extends the life another 20 or so years; however, it is the most costly option to give the airframe more life/hours.  Without any major structural mods we can probably get the aircraft out to the middle of the next decade but it is not going to be easy. 

The Block 3 program will give the aircraft excellent sensor capabilities but one has to ask is it a worthwhile endeavour on an airframe that is going to be retired due to a lack of will/money to extend the structural life. 

It seems unlikely that any built in Canada replacement can be in place by the time our fleet TX's.  Modding a Global Express or other commercial variant is going to be problematic as one can see with the delays in the P-8 programme.  UAV's are an option but requirements such as redundant satellite/communication  access while operating in controlled airspace make this option quite costly as well.

 

[observor 69]

It seems unlikely that any built in Canada replacement can be in place by the time our fleet TX's.  Modding a Global Express or other commercial variant is going to be problematic as one can see with the delays in the P-8 programme.  UAV's are an option but requirements such as redundant satellite/communication  access while operating in controlled airspace make this option quite costly as well.

Makes one wonder if it is time to follow the C-17 example and buy off the shelf MMA 737s.

 

[Northernguardian]

Very interesting times to be involved with the CP140 indeed. Valley Denizen is very well informed wrt tail numbers.
I attended a stand up lunch with Gen. McCabe this month and the topic of CP140 replacement came up. He didn't come out and say that we are going to procure a replacement, but stated that a Canadian made aircraft would be selected if we did. He said the P8 was far to expensive.

Bombardier doesn't make anything capable of replacing the CP140, or any LRP aircraft.  However if the Conservatives announce we are buying Bombardier, it would be a vote getter in Quebec and Ontario.  Buy some little commuter aircraft and get something half assed. Imagine LRP in the arctic with a Dash 8. What a joke.....

Of course, there is the CRJ. Quite a warplane there. They had to leave half the luggage behind when I flew on one last spring to Toronto. That aircraft cannot fly with full pax and luggage for more than a few hours. They had to take on extra fuel for an alternate (Montreal), so they bumped our luggage. I will never fly on one of them again.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Just one thought:  If we went with shorter range aircraft, such as a tweaked version of ASTOR or perhaps something completely different, it would necessitate more bases in the North which in my humble opinion is inherently a good thing with the increasingly assertive stances of Russia and others.


Matthew. 

 

[aesop081]

Just one thought:  If we went with shorter range aircraft, such as a tweaked version of ASTOR or perhaps something completely different, it would necessitate more bases in the North which in my humble opinion is inherently a good thing with the increasingly assertive stances of Russia and others.


Matthew.   

A shorter range aicraft doesnt do us any good on the pacific and atlantic coasts where we use the Aurora's range to the maximum as it is.

 

[NovaScotiaNewfie]

Hi all. I remember some time ago on NTV or CBC news here in Newfoundland  that Provincial Airlines or other NL firms were either making planes or surveillance systems for a northern European nation, maybe Sweden, Finland or Denmark for martime concerns. Not sure if it was overfishing, pollution etc...I did a search on google and found this site :


http://www.provincialaerospace.com/AMSDHome.htm

Not sure if this system could be an option or not.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

A shorter range aicraft doesnt do us any good on the pacific and atlantic coasts where we use the Aurora's range to the maximum as it is.

CDN Aviator, if you were in control of the budget, how would you proceed with procurement?


Many thanks, Matthew. 

 

[aesop081]

Hi all. I remember some time ago on NTV or CBC news here in Newfoundland  that Provincial Airlines or other NL firms were either making planes or surveillance systems for a northern European nation, maybe Sweden, Finland or Denmark for martime concerns. Not sure if it was overfishing, pollution etc...I did a search on google and found this site :


http://www.provincialaerospace.com/AMSDHome.htm

Not sure if this system could be an option or not.

PAL already operates on both coasts as it is now. They do not fulfill a military role thus it does not suport the Navy opr the army and does not contribute to international operations. They support DFO and other domestic tasks and thats it.

 

[aesop081]

CDN Aviator, if you were in control of the budget, how would you proceed with procurement?


Many thanks, Matthew.   

If i was in control, i would have upgraded the Aurora 10 years ago and would have jumped on the P-8 program from day one, simple as that.

 

[SupersonicMax]

More FYI:

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/002310.html

Umm, according to this,

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2004/01/12/daily13.html

The 737 is Boeings best seller, and the Next-Gen 737 (on which the P8 is based) have been continuously updated.

On using the 767, while there is some merit to having a longer-ranged aircraft for this role, the 767 is, on average, twice as expensive as a 737 to buy and operate.

The USN seems to think that slow speed and low altitude operations aren't as important anymore, and would rather have an aircraft that can cruise higher (read larger sensor footprint), and faster (more area coverage).

The speed advantage is negligible? 440kts vs 330kts is a third faster. I wouldn't call that negligible.

The old prop P3 is not as fuel efficient as a 737, not even close. Plus, four, old props require a lot more maintenance than two, new turbofans.
Posted by Smitty | September 12, 2005 7:20 PM

If I'm not mistaken, the Aurora mission profiles are usually flown at low altitude.  A jet at low altitude is FAR less fuel efficient than a turbo-prop.

Max

 

[prom]

Apparently the idea is that the P-8 will be able to operate at a higher altitude covering a larger search foot print, thus covering more area in less time thanks in part to tech advances

 

[aesop081]

If I'm not mistaken, the Aurora mission profiles are usually flown at low altitude. 

actualy  it depends very much on the specific task at hand, we have many and the specific phase of that tasking. Thats as far as i will go on that.

 

[aesop081]

Apparently the idea is that the P-8 will be able to operate at a higher altitude covering a larger search foot print, thus covering more area in less time thanks in part to tech advances

Sensor footprint is not the only consideration when picking an operating altitude so dont get wraped up in that concept.