• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CP-140 Aurora

"
RCAF? No such thing any longer ...."

Well legally, technically yes.  But for us nostalgic types, the RCAF lives & soars on gilded wings above the strife and clouds and I believe always will  :salute: :cdn: 

And this Saturday night I will be having a toast to the RCAF with a  couple of recently retired members at a Christmas event.  It will be a fine moment.

I'm just channeling my father who survived Bomber Command and was a proud RCAF  member  who despised the whole forces amalgamation /Paul Hellier  activities.





 
hank011 said:
I have very little confidence in the opinion of a former pilot over the CDS.  

To be frank the opinion of a jaded former tech is of little interest to me.  Your negative thoughts on the subject  are well documented in previous threads an the Aurora.

hank011 said:
The CDS is provided with the state of the airframes just like those who maintain them(maintainers, not bus drivers) and will make the best decision.


You display a certain animosity towards pilots and I would assume aircrew in general.  Just for your information though, aircrew (inclucing the bus drivers) ::) are also briefed on the state of the airframes.
 
This is a good news story for the Aurora community.  10 Block three aircraft and the balance Block 2 (until they TX) is going to give us a good capability operating a platform we know how to fly.  The RNZAF had a significant increase in serviceability due to their new wings as they did not experience the fuel leak probs that old wings can give you. 

I know that many see this as a step back as the numbers decrease but for those of use who deal with the fleet daily, a fleet of 10 modern aircraft, while not optimum, is a decent capability.
 
Haletown said:
"
RCAF? No such thing any longer ...."

Well legally, technically yes.  But for us nostalgic types, the RCAF lives & soars on gilded wings above the strife and clouds and I believe always will  :salute: :cdn: 

And this Saturday night I will be having a toast to the RCAF with a  couple of recently retired members at a Christmas event.  It will be a fine moment.

I'm just channeling my father who survived Bomber Command and was a proud RCAF  member  who despised the whole forces amalgamation /Paul Hellier  activities.

Nothing wrong with honouring the past but bear in mind, we have a lot of people coming to this site that don't know the difference and seeing titles such as RCAF and RCN might lead to confusion and errors on their parts. Not to mention those members that have never served in the RCN and RCAF and are serving now or have served can feel slighted by those that continue to refer to our present organizations by a title that now unfortunately exists in the History books.
 
Don Newman calls out Lizzie May on the Aurora issue  . .  "sounds to me like regional pork barrel politics

Her spin is these are SAR aircraft primarily - with a major dollop of fishery and oil spill watch

Not a mention of a military use.

  http://www.cbc.ca/video/popup.html?http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/politics/politics_thu.wmv

  about  the 8:30 minute mark

 
Block 2 conversion for us starts early in the new year. I'm glad to see that ASLEP will go ahead. Without it, it would have been pointless to go ahead with Block3. I'm slightly concerned though. Since Norway signed their contract for new wings first and now the US will be looking to buy the same, it puts us back in the line. The weapon system manager was quite concerned about this when he breifed us earlier this year. Some of the airframes we have will TX before we have the necessary kits to upgrade the structure.

As to the number of aircraft that are to be upgraded to block 3, well i cant wait to see what they decide to do as far as west / east coast numbers. My educated guess will be 6 east and 4 west but thats just a shot in the dark.

I'm also eager to see how things pan out as far as the MOAT course is concerned. Some people may have to stay in their current positions longer than anticipated ( both by themselves and the career manager) while we operate the legacy systems.

Maybe once we have the new wings, we can bump our YFR to what it was before that 30% cut earlier this year.
 
The Chief of the Air Staff responds--which were the "candidates" (final para)?
http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/999487.html

The general in charge of Canada’s air force says there will be just as much surveillance of the country’s coast lines, even with fewer Aurora patrol planes on the tarmac in the coming years.

The comment from Lt.-Gen. Angus Watt follows criticism of the decision this week to proceed with upgrades on only 10 of the country’s 18 Auroras, also known as CP-140s.

He called the notion that fewer aircraft will mean less surveillance "a myth."

In the short-term, by juggling flying schedules between upgraded and soon-to-be-retired planes, the air force will be able to increase patrol time, he said.

The nearly 30-year-old Auroras, based in Greenwood and Comox, B.C., fly a total average of 6,500 hours a year.

"We are not going to go below that," Watt insisted in an interview with The Canadian Press.

Watt, who took over the air force’s top job last summer, also took issue with reports that Arctic overflights have been discontinued because of budget restraint.

He said Aurora flights to the Arctic, which rely partly on line-of-sight observation, are routinely scaled back in the winter because it is dark most of the day and there is little activity to begin with.

Green party Leader Elizabeth May and Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre both slammed the decision not to upgrade all 18 planes, as had originally been planned by the Chretien government in the late 1990s. Defence Minister Peter MacKay made the choice after weighing whether it was worth proceeding with the refurbishment or buying a new aircraft.

May said she wonders whether cutting the upgrade nearly in half would mean a "50 per cent reduction in the (Aurora’s) capacity" to patrol the coastlines.

The air force has a variety of new fixed-wing planes and helicopters on order — or about to arrive — and has been painted as eagerly searching aircraft catalogues, looking to dump the Aurora.

Nothing could be further from the truth, said Watt, who has kept a low-profile throughout the controversy.

"We don’t thumb through catalogues," he said. "That trivializes a very important matter." [emphasis added--meanwhile some of us do our own dreaming, with Google rather than thumb ;)]..

When it became clear the airframe would need millions of dollars worth of repairs and reinforcements beyond the existing upgrades, staff began tossing around the idea of buying a replacement aircraft.

Two possible candidates were examined and Watt said aircraft were available but they did not have all of the required electronic features needed, particularly for maritime surveillance [emphasis added].

Mark
Ottawa
 
Last para noted.

Does anyone know which Government/MND chose to not participate in the the P8 program ??

Australia in wings as Boeing P-8 production starts

Production of the first Boeing P-8A Poseidon has begun, as negotiations continue for Australia to join the US Navy's Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft programme. The 737 derivative is to replace the navy's Lockheed Martin P-3C Orions from 2013.

Assembly of the fuselage for the first of five P-8s in the development programme - three flight-test and two ground-test aircraft - started at Spirit AeroSystems in Wichita, Kansas in early December. The fuselage for aircraft T-1 will be shipped to Boeing's 737 final-assembly plant in March 2008, is scheduled to roll out next August and fly in March 2009, following loads calibration. Development flight-testing will begin in September 2009, after its mission system has been installed.

"We are on track and entering build of the first five aircraft with highly certain dates because we are integrated with the 737 production line," says Bob Feldmann, Boeing vice-president and P-8A programme manager.

Australia last July decided to join the MMA programme, and is negotiating a memorandum of understanding to participate in spiral development of the P-8. The first round of negotiations was completed in October and a second is planned for February, says Capt Mike Moran, the USN's P-8 integrated product team lead. The navy, meanwhile, is beginning to define the aircraft's first capability upgrade spiral, he says.

India recently began evaluating cost proposals for its maritime patrol aircraft requirement, having assessed the P-8I, an Airbus A319 derivative from EADS, Ilyushin's Il-38, a modified Dassault Falcon 900 offered by Israel Aerospace Industries/Elta Systems, and a remanufactured P-3 from Lockheed.

Canada is meanwhile considering abandoning the incremental upgrade of its P-3-based CP-140 Auroras and buying new aircraft, with a decision expected by the end of 2007. However, Moran says: "We have not had any discussions with the Canadians."


http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/12/29/220335/australia-in-wings-as-boeing-p-8-production-starts.html
 
From my times traveling the great white north I have excellent memories of the 737.  A great reliable airframe.... even though it is getting to be a little long in the tooth.  Not necessarily the fastest craft flying, it has plenty of cargo space, has the capacity to carry tons of cargo (or equipment) and it's power plant puts out more than enough power.....
 
geo said:
and it's power plant puts out more than enough power.....

Geo, Its not just the amount of power produced that counts but more importantly how was the turbine can deliver that power. If things go to shit at 100 feet, we need engines that can deliver full power right away not in 30 seconds.
 
geo said:
A great reliable airframe.... even though it is getting to be a little long in the tooth.  Not necessarily the fastest craft flying, it has plenty of cargo space, has the capacity to carry tons of cargo (or equipment) and it's power plant puts out more than enough power.....

Depends on which version you are talking about: they did a major "Next-Gen" overhaul in the '90s and again in 2002 (& cruise is something on the order of Ma .8 ... faster than the C-17 and certainly fast enough!) : http://boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_tech1.html

I, for one, would be *very* happy to fly it (then again, I would be happy to continue to get paid to fly anything!)
 
John Galt,

I have a versted interest in this and the P-8 is MY choice.
 
This fascinating tidbit is buried in a story about the Cyclone delivery problems:
http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=97299&sc=89
...
MacKay disclosed the Defence Department is in the initial stages of looking at "about a half a dozen possible replacement" options for eight of 18 old Aurora coastal patrol planes.

The air force is going ahead with structural upgrades of remaining Auroras...

Interesting that the Chief of the Air Staff has said that only two possible replacements had been examined previously. Suggestions for the "half a dozen" candidates now? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/12/chief-of-air-staff-on-auroras.html

Maybe UAVs are among them.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/10/uavs-for-maritime-surveillance.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/10/24/arctic-drones.html

Mark
Ottawa
 
hfxnews goofs again....
EH10?   vs EH 101
The deadline for the delivery of the 1st unit has come and gone? vs delivery due for Nevember 2008

then... it would appear that the Gov't puts the delays squarely in the hands of Sikorsky.  No engineering changes suggested:

The government is assessing whether it is prudent to start seeking financial penalties from Sikorsky for late delivery, MacKay said. His priority is to push Sikorsky to get "back on schedule," and perhaps add choppers to the one-a-month delivery schedule specified by the contract.

"We're going to continue working with Sikorsky. We're going to try to pin them down a little bit further on what the timelines are. There are penalties and clauses that will kick in."

I read another article the other day... something about the Finnish gov't and their dealings with an attack helicopter order coming out of France.  The penalties levied were converted into an additional helicopter.... Methinks that is a creative way of dealing with the supplier and creating a win/win situation.... even when the supplier is in the wrong.
 
geo

  Iam just a Civy but man that would be sweet if you could get the company to provide the CF with an extra helicopter or two for the delays . 
 
I do not work for any of the companies.

I am a guy who reads and watch shows on the topic.

I am just interest why things always get screwed up.

I 100% support the purchase of four the C17 (should arrange to purchase 2 to 4 more for the simple fact almost any mission the DND will be ask to do will across an ocean)

However, I am not sold on the Boeing P-8 MMA as the best option for Canada.

Bombardier CRJ900 or CRJ1000 might be a better fit for Canada even if it will not be able to carry the same weapons loads but enough to make it as deadly as the P-8. CRJ would be able carry the sensors need to do the same job. CRJ series of jets have sold very well around the world. This should help to reduce over all cost of operating cost of the planes, supply of parts...? just like the 737

What is in the harm of taking the new mission equipment from the Aurora upgrade project that is sitting collect dust in some storage area and create CRJ900 test aircraft.[/quote]

Range is Important !

I look up the Boeing and Bombardier web site and looked up the range of the aircraft.

Boeing P-8

General Characteristics:
Propulsion: Two CFM567
engines providing 27,000
pounds thrust each
Length: 123.3 feet (37.59 meters)
Wing Span: 123.6 feet (37.64 meters)
Height: 42.1 feet (12.83 meters)
Maximum Takeoff Gross Weight: 187,700 pounds (85,139 kilograms)
Speed: 490 knots (564 mi/h, 789 km/h)
Range: 1,200+ nautical miles, with 4 hours on station
(1,381 miles, 2,222 kilometers)
Ceiling: 41,000 feet (12,496 meters)
Crew: 9


Bombardier CRJ900

Range
(220 ** per pax, MTOW, LRC with reserves)
Maximum range at LRC
CRJ900 NextGen (88 pax) 1,304 NM 1,500 SM 2,414 km
CRJ900 NextGen ER (88 pax) 1,557 NM 1,792 SM 2,883 km
CRJ900 NextGen LR (88 pax) 1,804 NM 2,076 SM 3,341 km
Speed Mach kts mph km/h
High cruise speed 0.83 476 548 882
Long-range cruise speed 0.78 447 515 827


The P-8 has a range of 1200NM with a 4 hour on station time
CRJ900LR has a range of 1200NM with a 604NM on station time. I am not going to work actual time, however the plane does have an on station time.

However, there is one problem of Canada in get the P-8 in time to be used. The target date for the full rate production for the P-8 to be signed off by the US GOV. is 2012.

Plus it is unlikely that Canada would be getting any of the early produced planes because the US fleet of P-3C are in serious bad shape with the Navy grounding 30 planes this year alone.

It would make more sense for Canada to convert the CRJ900 with AIMP equipment that has been report as paid for and wait to be installed. If the mission equipment is not on hand yet is not the point. A CRJ900 set for MMA duty should be done long before Canada can buy the P-8.

P-8 price tag is stated 150 million dollars with out delays or cost overruns on systems.
CRJ900 with a passenger cabin is roughly 36 million dollars (with out the cabin the price drops and use gross payload increases. The mission system contract has already been sign and developed or finishing development.
Canada should and the main word is Should be able to produce a CRJ900 some where under 100 dollars is good for Canada and atractive to other countries. Plus the price difference would allow DND to have a larger fleet and planes located at more bases (sovereignty reason)

Plus the CRJ 900 / 1000 could be a stepping stone to move to the C series that Bomdardier is trying to hit the GOV for more money or it will move it to the US.

Instead of giving money the Gov should should state that it will do a Firm purchase 5 C series with option for testing purpose. In the mean time the Gov should purchase  some CRJ 900 for a testing as a interm replacement for the MPA roll until the P-8, C series or a better option is found.

CRJ 900 / 1000 purchase as follows:

2 MPA with refueling (one with the converted with the sensor package firt for flight testing. second full convert jet with 1 or 2 bomb bay in the cargo area forward and aft of the wings (location not sure), hadpoint on the wings 2 each and finally a refueling probe.

2 AEW&C planes. Israel  uses a G550 with conformal AESA radar for a full 360 view and the first on has beem deliveried

2 Astor for the ground forces

2 light weight refuel planes (wait wait crazy idea but hear me out) for emergency cases for Canada as the Airbus 310 AR are located in Ontario. plus could be bases in the Arctic and costal bases for refueling MPA and SAR Planes, Helicopters (chinnook purchase, UAVS .


If you Look at the planes out there the option are limited. Boeing and Airbus planes asking price will not be affordable for most countries including Canada to have a  large enough fleet.

The P-3 is dead plane and useful air frame are basically gone.

To me there looks to be a market for a light weight MPA , AEW&C and Canada and it's business could benefit from it. 

   
 
WPA said:
I do not work for any of the companies.

Same here

I am a guy who reads and watch shows on the topic.

I'm a guy who flies these missions and who is paid to know what he is talking about on this topic.

I am just interest why things always get screwed up.

Because people who read too many book/articles by more peole who dont know what they are talking about get asked what they think.



However, I am not sold on the Boeing P-8 MMA as the best option for Canada.

Fair enough.

Bombardier CRJ900 or CRJ1000 might be a better fit for Canada even if it will not be able to carry the same weapons loads but enough to make it as deadly as the P-8. CRJ would be able carry the sensors need to do the same job. CRJ series of jets have sold very well around the world. This should help to reduce over all cost of operating cost of the planes, supply of parts...? just like the 737

The CRJ, with the same sensors as AIMP will not be able to carry any of the weapons planned for the P-8 or what is currently carried by the CP-140. You can have all the sensors you want but.......

What is in the harm of taking the new mission equipment from the Aurora upgrade project that is sitting collect dust in some storage area and create CRJ900 test aircraft.

The AIMP equipment is designed for the CP-140 and now being installed into the CP-140.

Range is Important !

The rest of your post indicates that you have no idea what "range"means.



The P-8 has a range of 1200NM with a 4 hour on station time
CRJ900LR has a range of 1200NM with a 604NM on station time. I am not going to work actual time, however the plane does have an on station time.

604 NM of on-station time is SFA.......You have no idea how large the Canadian AOR is do you ?

However, there is one problem of Canada in get the P-8 in time to be used. The target date for the full rate production for the P-8 to be signed off by the US GOV. is 2012.

Plus it is unlikely that Canada would be getting any of the early produced planes because the US fleet of P-3C are in serious bad shape with the Navy grounding 30 planes this year alone.

That is "FULL RATE" production. The USN will begin recieving aircraft with "INITIAL LOW RATE" production. The US let us skip the line for the CC-177 after all so you cannot say that the same arrangement cannot be done.

It would make more sense for Canada to convert the CRJ900 with AIMP equipment that has been report as paid for and wait to be installed. If the mission equipment is not on hand yet is not the point. A CRJ900 set for MMA duty should be done long before Canada can buy the P-8.

The AIMP equipment is being installed into the CP-140 to keep it going until a replacement can be selected. The AIMP equipment was designed some time ago, for the most part and will be obsolete in a few years after the Block 3 aircraft hits sqn service.

P-8 price tag is stated 150 million dollars with out delays or cost overruns on systems.
CRJ900 with a passenger cabin is roughly 36 million dollars (with out the cabin the price drops and use gross payload increases. The mission system contract has already been sign and developed or finishing development.
Canada should and the main word is Should be able to produce a CRJ900 some where under 100 dollars is good for Canada and atractive to other countries. Plus the price difference would allow DND to have a larger fleet and planes located at more bases (sovereignty reason)

Re-designing a commercial airliner for military service costs a fortune.....just ask the US Navy !!

Plus the CRJ 900 / 1000 could be a stepping stone to move to the C series that Bomdardier is trying to hit the GOV for more money or it will move it to the US.

You are advocating more political pork-barelling ?


The P-3 is dead plane and useful air frame are basically gone.

No. AIMP + ASLEP will ensure that this is not the case.

 
I never said i knew everything. and i am not for pork-barelling.

I do however feel at times DND like everyone else in the nation want 100% on there wish list.

I am for a lot of purchases and then i feel that sometime there are solution in Canada. Plus people can not get everything they ask for.

Are you saying the C17 was a screwed up?

The CRJ range figure was before any extra fuel tanks are add.  MMA range is stated with the extra fuel tanks.

However about the cost factor? the P-8 looks to be to costly for a Canada and DND.
Plus the operation cost of the CRJ is lower then the 737. That is the reason the plane has been successful replace 737 planes in airline fleets around the world.
The you need to look into the fact that a combination of lower quality in range, weapons payload with increase quantity planes that DND can buy in lower purchased cost and operating costs? 

The Navy clearly see the P-8 as more then a MPA and that why they are calling a Multi Mission Aircraft.

The funny thing is Canada just needs the MPA. 

How about the fact other countries are able to produce MPA and AEW&C on the same type of airframe.

Plus the CRJ is base on the business aircraft and they have been proven to hold the radars an EO turrets, etc.

AIMP contact has already been sign and therefore with only 10 P140 being upgrade there is extra equipment to try a test plane.

You stated

"That is "FULL RATE" production. The USN will begin recieving aircraft with "INITIAL LOW RATE" production. The US let us skip the line for the CC-177 after all so you cannot say that the same arrangement cannot be done."

At the rate the U.S. P-3 are being ground the U.S. will not let Canada skip the ahead in the line. Just look how hard it is to get the Chinnoks!
 
Back
Top