CP-140 Aurora

[Cdn Blackshirt]

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.

And given where we are now, what would you do?


Matthew.   

 

[aesop081]

And given where we are now, what would you do?


Matthew.   

This is my opinion only....

There is no painless way ahead. The problem we face with the Aurora traces its roots to the day it was designed.  The CP-140 Aurora is unlike any other P-3 in the world, thus the 18 we have constituted an orphan fleet on delivery. The airframe itself is just another normal P-3C but most of its tactical system come from the S-3A Viking.  We receive the CP-140 in 1980 and it was outdated from day one. It should have been modernized in 1990 at the latest. Fiscal constraints created a monster called AIMP in order to rectify the situation.  The "incremental" part is the one that realy gets me.  I understand the arguments about taking aircraft off the line for extended periods of time and training issues.  I understand that it was made "incremental" because of lack of funds. If we had originaly purchassed the CP-140 in the same configuration as the P-3C we could have, through the years, benefted from already developed modernization packages that went into USN aircraft.

As i said there is no way to avoid pain.  Norway has signed its contract for new wings and tail from Lockheed ( same thing ASLEP would have done for us) and from what i have read, the USN is considering doing the same to allow the P-3C to live until the MMA arrives.  This means that even if we signed a contract for ASLEP now, we have lost our place in line ( Canada was to be the launch costumer) and the CP-140 will continue to age and have to be grounded. With the number of flying hours already on each CP-140, they will have to be grounded and sit & wait for new wings, however long that would take.

So,

Lets say we install Block 2 and Block 3 on our aircraft, how long will we be able to use them for ? 2015 isnt far away after all.  How long will it take to train everyone on those new systems ? Is it worth it without ASLEP ?

On the other hand, can we continue with the current systems ( speaking mostly about the tactical systems since block 2 is underway for the nav and comms stuff) until the MMA/Bombardier replacement comes along ?

I'm not high enough in the food chain to have the answers to all that. Theres people higher, more experienced and alot smarter than me that i trust will make the right recomendations to the government.

On another note.....

For those who seek to oversimplify the maritime patrol Long Range patrol mission down to sensor footprint , area coverage and low altitude, let me say this : Those are only part of the equasion.  It is not  matter of gathering a collection of radar blips and calling it patroling. Long Range patrol happens High, happens medium and happens low.  ASW and ASuW happen at whatever altitude is required. Overland ISR happens at many altitudes depending on the task.  You can have all the sensor footprint you want but when the weather extends for 15 000 feet right down to 200, sensor footprint does nothing for you. i've said it before to a few people, what the LRP comunity does in this country rarely makes the news and is not widely understood outside the units themselves and the Navy. We carry out missions that directly impact Canadians such as pollution patrols, fisheries patrols and counter-drug operations in support of the RCMP but we also have demanding military missions that things like provincial aerospace and "watchkeeper" cannot handle.

With the large variety of missions we have and the huge expanses of oceans Canada has to monitor, nothing short of a long range, multi-mission military aircraft will serve Canadians right.

My 2 cents, based on what i know now, i welcome all contrary views, especialy from those with more experience/ flying hours than i

 

[observor 69]

CDN Aviator  "I'm not high enough in the food chain to have the answers to all that. Theres people higher, more experienced and alot smarter than me that i trust will make the right recomendations to the government."

Higher and more experienced maybe, smarter doubtful.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[Babbling Brooks]

There is no painless way ahead.

That honesty alone tells me your opinion is worth noting. 

I'd echo your thoughts about some of the poor decisions made regarding this fleet over the years, and I too find myself wishing for a time machine to go back and undo some of them (not just regarding the Auroras, either...).

Speaking with people who have an interest in this file, it's my impression that DND is increasingly concerned with finding a stop-gap solution that bridges between the CP-140 and a reliable UAV to handle long-range patrols.  The question is whether the current life extension measures cost more than they're worth in the grand scheme of things.

I wonder if better satellite communications on the horizon for 2014 (if all goes according to plan) would help make the case for a quicker transition to UAVs?

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Front/874400.html

 

[Sub_Guy]

You can't replace the LRP with UAV's you could definitely augment the fleet of LRP aircraft with UAV's.  Thats just my opinion, but I think it would be a costly mistake to think that a UAV could do everything that a manned aircraft could do. 

Besides, I just want to fly, not sit in a atco trailer working a joystick!  >

 

[Old Sweat]

Dolphin Hunter

Does this mean that Dead Ant is going to disappear? (In the bad old days when Edward and I were junior captains in CFHQ, a lot of the ex-Argus aircrew used to come to the Army Mess for happy hour. 'nuff said.)

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Japan is working on their own solution to their aging P3Cs:

http://www.khi.co.jp/ba/2007data/ba_c3070704-1.html

 

[Sub_Guy]

Doesn't look that bad, and much cheaper than the P8.  Too bad they aren't permitted to export military equipment.  Makes me wonder if anyone is looking at this aircraft, and perhaps those export rules can be lifted. 

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

First flight (of the P-X) ... 2pics+video.  Looks pretty good, but the P-8 is still probably a better choice for the CF:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/graham-warwick/2007/09/japans-kawaski-px-flies-1.html

 

[Sub_Guy]

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=4c86bcdb-a875-4a96-86e0-c144c7407050]Military wants to replace spy plane sooner, not later[url]http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=4c86bcdb-a875-4a96-86e0-c144c7407050

The Canadian military is laying the groundwork for a multi-billion-dollar purchase of a new surveillance plane to patrol the country's coastlines and replace the existing Aurora aircraft fleet, which is facing structural problems.

Among the options that could be considered is a U.S. military aircraft based on the Boeing 737 passenger jet, but outfitted with sensors, as well as a Bombardier Global Express jet equipped with surveillance gear.

The air force had intended to keep its CP-140 Auroras flying until 2025, but the service is now rethinking those plans and wants a new multi-mission aircraft ready in nine years when it retires its aging surveillance planes.

The Auroras were purchased in the early 1980s to conduct anti-submarine patrols and maritime surveillance. The 18 planes operate at bases on the East and West coasts and are considered vital for watching over the country's maritime approaches.

The air force's current strategy is to continue using the Aurora until a new aircraft is purchased. Military officials say the service is in the early stages of the process and needs to assemble a team to look at the basic requirements for a new plane.

"It's all very early in the conceptual stage right now," said air force spokesman Capt. Jim Hutcheson. "They haven't got to looking at options yet."

Military planners, however, have asked for information regarding the U.S. navy's Poseidon maritime aircraft. The plane, a 737 converted into a surveillance aircraft, is the U.S. navy's successor to its version of the Aurora.

Canadian officials have also asked for details on the ASTOR surveillance aircraft project under way for Britain's military. That aircraft uses the smaller Bombardier Global Express jet and is designed for providing surveillance of ground targets.

"We provided the information (to the Canadian Forces) that we were allowed to release," said Denny Roberts, vice-president of Raytheon Canada. Raytheon provides many of the sensors onboard the Poseidon and is developing the ASTOR project for the British.

"They appear to be serious about this," Mr. Roberts, a retired air force colonel, said of the Canadian plan to replace the Auroras.

The initial search for a replacement plane comes as the military is conducting inspections on the 26-year-old Auroras to detect and repair possible structural damage, particularly in the wing area. The inspections were started as a precautionary measure because of warnings from the U.S. navy, which operates a similar fleet.

The Canadian Forces has already spent $900 million in upgrading navigation and radio equipment for its Auroras, but is reconsidering whether it should spend any more money to install new sensors and computers. It will decide on or before Nov. 20 on how to proceed on the upgrade program.

An earlier plan to spend $500 million for new structural components for the Auroras is also in question. That project would have dealt with the aircraft's wings, which several studies show have been "accumulating fatigue damage" at a rate faster than anticipated.

"The current thinking is that it would make more sense to proceed with an Aurora replacement in the 2016 timeframe and that's why we are thinking about not proceeding with the full range of upgrades, both mechanical and avionics and equipment," Capt. Hutcheson said.

No price tag has been set for a new aircraft, but defence industry officials say such a program is expected to cost several billion dollars.

 

[GAP]

Aging Aircraft: BAE's Structural Inspection Kits for P-3s
P-3C Orion
11-Oct-2007 14:43
Article Link

BAE Systems Technology Solutions and Services in Rockville, MD recveived a $10.6 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract (N00421-06-D-0038) for the manufacture of 13 P-3 Special Structural Inspection airframe kits. This effort entails production of Emergency Rate Initial Production quantities of end item component parts, including engineering, analytical and manufacturing efforts in support of the Aging Aircraft Program; the original $14 million contract was announced on Sept 26/06. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (56%); Rockville, MD (24%); and Brea, CA (20%) and is expected to be complete in September 2009. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division at Patuxent River, MD issued the contract.

The US military has a growing issue with aging aircraft, and its P-3 Orion maritime surveillance fleet is particularly hard hit because of the planes' demanding low-level maritime flight profile. Numbers continue to decline each year as aircraft are forced out of service, even though the US Navy is taking a wide range of measures to keep its planes flying until the hoped-for P-8A Poseidons arrive to replace them. Other Orion users like Australia, Canada, and Norway are also taking measures to keep their Orions flying, even re-winging the aircraft in some cases.
More on link

 

[karl28]

So do this mean that the Fed are planing at some point soon to purchase 13  new P-3  to replace our Auora ?  Interesting Article GAP thanks for the link .

 

[GAP]

No, I think if you look carefully at the article, you will find they are talking about US P-3's

 

[aesop081]

So do this mean that the Fed are planing at some point soon to purchase 13  new P-3  to replace our Auora ?  Interesting Article GAP thanks for the link .

P-3 airframes are no longer manufactured.....by anyone.

 

[Jammer]

I think that a consideration that may influence a decision on the type of airframe that might do as an Aurora replacement is the desire to have four engines vice two for northern patrols.
Does anyone think that the new A/C might have a role to play similar to ASTOR or JSTARS in the manner of battlespace control?

 

[aesop081]

I think that a consideration that may influence a decision on the type of airframe that might do as an Aurora replacement is the desire to have four engines vice two for northern patrols.

If 2 engines (i.e. P-8 ) is good enough to fly 1500 miles away from base, cover a few thousand squares miles of patrol area over the open ocean and come home, 2 engines is good enough for the North.

Does anyone think that the new A/C might have a role to play similar to ASTOR or JSTARS in the manner of battlespace control?

I'm sure its being considered but it will certainly depend on how much money John-Q taxpayer is willling to spend.

 

[Jammer]

During ALIX the Predator-B was evaluated. Has there been any other discussion whether or not UAVs might have a role to play in littoral patrolling.
There are signifigant numbers of low hour P-3A/B airframes in storage. Would they not be the perfect alternative to the AIMP. Meaning they could be modified from the wheels up, gaining a good bit more of flight hours without the cost of modifying existing A/F and hedging bets on A/C that haven't even flown yet?

 

[aesop081]

During ALIX the Predator-B was evaluated. Has there been any other discussion whether or not UAVs might have a role to play in littoral patrolling.

UAVs are in fact being investigated to see if they can fill this role.  Not necessarily the Predator specificaly but as a general concept its being considered. IMHO however, UAVs cannot fill all missions in the LRP/MP environment thus we wont be able to get away from manned aircraft. And then theres the question of what capabilities we are going to allow ourselves to lose.....

There are signifigant numbers of low hour P-3A/B airframes in storage. Would they not be the perfect alternative to the AIMP. Meaning they could be modified from the wheels up, gaining a good bit more of flight hours without the cost of modifying existing A/F and hedging bets on A/C that haven't even flown yet?

You are confusing 2 programs. AIMP exists to replace the avionics and tactical systems of the CP-140.  ASLEP (Aurora Structural Life Extension Project) was designed to replace structural components extending the life of the aircraft. Therefore using old P-3A/B would not be an alternative to AIMP.  At any rate, forget the P-3A/B..........It would cost us just as much to bring them back to life and put modern avaionics and tactical systems in them ( we would have to AIMP them too).

 

[Jammer]

P-8 it is then.

 

[aesop081]

P-8 it is then.

To be honest with you, i hope so. I like the P-8 concept and i like the fact that it would mean not giving up any of the capabilities we have now.