Harriers for Navy/Air Force

[CougarKing]

Has anyone in this board ever considered the Harrier for Canadian Navy or Air Force service? I mean they could come in useful if the Navy ever commissions a new carrier. Since the US is the only nation in the world that can afford a supercarrier like the Nimitz class, it is more probable that any future Canadian carrier will be a small one similar to the VTOL carriers in British, Spanish or Italian service. Besides it's about time that Canada has a ship that some airpower projection capability- maybe we should consider building a amphibious assault ship similar to the UK's HMS Ocean or Australia's HMAS Narvantia/Armidale Class.

Here are some blog comments furthering arguing why Canada should build a new carrier.

http://www.noreplacementfordisplacement.com/archives/001167.html

I know the Harriers are nearing the end of their service lives in RN, RAF and USMC service, but they will probably see longer lives in Spanish, Thai and Italian service, which means that the needs for spare parts will continue. Thus, the Harrier would be a good choice for a shipboard fighter.

 

[Michael OLeary]

captsantor,

Thank you for the 2-year-old blog entry with dead links.  There has been various discussions of possible replacement aircraft for the CF-18, or supplementary to them, most from folks who haven't provided any foundation to their proposal in real world terms of defence pollcy suggestions or realistic acquisition factors. You will also find discussions on defence policy and acquisition programs in terms of GDP based spending if you are interested in researching the forums.

The following reiterates a recent post to a thread suggesting Apache Longbow helicopters of the CF, and was previously presented in a thread on CF-18 replacement. It has yet to be addressed in detail by any of the posters who promted it as a response. Iit is equally valid for your consideration as well.

Not long ago there was a thread in the Air Force forum (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35100.0/all.html) where some posters were tossing out their personal choices for CF-18 replacement aircraft without having done any homework on procurement processes or the bigger picture of employment and logistics.

I inserted this post to help them wrap their heads around the most basic level of understanding that these issues exist, and that they are are real world considerations.  Here it is again for your to add to your list of factors to consider when proposing new equipment ideas for the CF.

Thank you.

Wizard,

before you get into a debate with the pilots comparing two airframes, why don't you lay out your entire appreciation for us:

Tasks and roles to be conducted.
Aircrew training requirements.
Aircraft maintenance lifecycle.
Number of airframes required, based on your assessment of tasks.
Expected lifespan of "new" airframes, compared to expectation of available manufacturer and principal nation support.
Requirements and costs to retrain and retool all required maintenance facilities and maintainers.
Infrastructure costs to support new aircraft in all Wing locations.
Costs to replace all CF-18 specific support assets with new version.

As you can see, simply comparing statistics and unit costs doesn't quite scratch the surface of what you are proposing based on "As long as the cost balance was positive how could it be a mistake." I'll add new points if I think of any. I am sure the pilots and flight line maintainers (Offr and NCM) on the forum can suggest a few more that must be considered in developing a proposal for new aircraft.

 

[Sf2]

what's with people and wacky proposals??

I suggest we bring back the Spitfire and Mosquito.  Especially the Mosquito.  I mean, come on, its made of wood, and we have lots of that, so spare parts are readily available.  And I'm sure the wood would absorb radar, so its pretty much a stealth fighter/bomber anyway.  We could stage them out of petawawa, paint them black, or stain them, and use them for the new CSOR

 

[NCRCrow]

Everybody has these grandiose idears...like one guy...How about Apaches! (How about u clean up your room or no supper!!)

or lightly used UK subs and now Harriers or UUV's. (insert eyeroll)

WHERE IS OUR SEAKING REPLACEMENT! Like 1992....2006........................2010+ (insert massive glitches) 2012..................

"lets get a new Amphib Carrier with Griffons from 427 Sqn (make a canal on the Ottawa River and use Petawawa as a staging area) and use Twin Otters from Yellowknife as AEW and utility(w/ Harpoons), and maybe para insertion cap for JTF4 Ninja snipers. With some Sperwar crap as UAV's from the "ghan" and some rented ARTHUR  shell trackers radars as a multi-function radar on a recommissioned YAGs-Porte St.Louis like."

SANFORD AND SON NAVY!

some people in this forum should make a New Years resolution to do some research prior to making ridiculous posts on Gucci equipment.

Lets see the Cyclone flying around Shearwater first...(if it already here disregard this post)

Crow

 

[Inch]

WHERE IS OUR SEAKING REPLACEMENT! Like 1992....2006........................2010+ (insert massive glitches) 2012..................

Lets see the Cyclone flying around Shearwater first...(if it already here disregard this post)

Crow

Ha! They aren't there yet, the Maritime Helicopter Training Centre (MHTC) is in the process of being built, construction started this past summer. No idea when it's anticipated to be up and operational though the SOR for the MHP states that it must be up and running 6 months prior to delivery of the first Cyclone. Other renovations are underway on the hangars.

This is a hell of a lot more progress than the last time we were supposed to get replacements. First one is supposed to be on the ramp by Nov 2008, less than 3 years to go.

 

[NCRCrow]

I hope you are right!!!

When I lived in the PMQ's in Rockcliffe the MHP trailers were visible from my overpriced PMQ.

LOL.............

 

[STONEY]

Hey INCH not to change the subject but any word yet on just what systems are intended to be fitted on Clyclone.

STONEY

 

[SeaKingTacco]

check out the MHP website, here:

www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/mhp/docssor_e.asp

Basically, the Cyclone will have an E/O pod, ISAR radar, low-frequency active sonar, sonobuoy dispenser and processor, Self-defence suite, rescue hoist, door gun and seating in comfort for a crew of four + 6 pax.

 

[NCRCrow]

dedicated ESM reciever? and link cap or datalink?

 

[Sf2]

6 pax???????

That's with all this kit correct?  I'm sure a version painted green without the ASW stuff would be able to carry more people?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

6 pax?

That's with all this kit correct?  I'm sure a version painted green without the ASW stuff would be able to carry more people?

That is correct- more like 19, I think.  You would have to visit Sikorsky's website to check that number.

dedicated ESM reciever? and link cap or datalink?

Yes to the ESM and Link... there is really alot of capability in the new helo...I only hit the highlights and did not provide an exhaustive list.

 

[h3tacco]

The Cyclone will have  a similar but slightly different sensor suite  than the MH-60R, the newest version of the seahawk. I believe the ESM is the same model but all rest are similar type but different manufacterors. For examplre the Romeo has the ALFS sonar while the Cyclone will have the HELRAS, both low frequency with similar performance. For comparison the Romeo has a crew of three and with the full mission kit has room for one pax. The one exception is that the Romeo will be fitted for and with the Hellfire missile. Hopefully, in the future the Cyclone will be fitted with a ASM.

As a side note it will be interesting to see  how the  Romeo fairs with a three man crew, two pilots and a senso (read AESOp). One pilot flies and one acts as the ATO (Airborne Tactics Officer) essentially the TACCO. As with  the MHP the Romeo will have basically the same number of sensors as a MPA (MPA has a mad but doesn't have a dipping sonar) with less than half the crew. The standard crew on a P-3C or CP-140 is somewhere between 10 and 15 (correct me if I am wrong).

 

[aesop081]

The standard crew on a P-3C or CP-140 is somewhere between 10 and 15 (correct me if I am wrong).

Minimum mission crew for the CP-140 is 10 ( pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer, 3 aesops, NAVCOM, TACNAV and 2 acoustics operators) but we usualy take extra front-enders for long missions.  Other P-3 variants use differing amounts depnding on their actual internal layout and stuff.  The overland mission may change all that but , last i heard, had not been decided.

 

[NCRCrow]

The Cyclone with a Link 11/14 Cap and a datalink will be sweet for Surpic missions for us shipboard EW's but vital for the radar guys in building a picture.

The ability to extend our Radar Horizon Range and VID surface combantants or white shipping will greatly enhance the RMP cap of the Navy.

AESOP's will have turn the ESM gear for once.....

 

[FoverF]

Not too far from the original topic of the thread;

What say all of you to F-35Bs?
They could be operated off of the supply ships in a 2-plane section, or a civvy-designed container ship (as has been mentioned in other threads) could easily accomodate half a dozen, with a decent supply of fuel and muntions, and still have storage capacity.

Not to mention the added benefits of having the STOVL variant in non-maritime environments (not the least of which is interoperability with the USN, USMC, and RN and RAF), particularily for CAS, and for arctic soverignty missions (where the only runways are usually gravel, and short)

Would the extra costs involved (training, logistics for the lift fan, lost range/payload capabiltiy) outweigh the benefits of being able to park some F-35s on the next desolate peice of rock the Danes start eyeing up (just as an example)?

 

[Inch]

FoverF,

Have a search for "JSF" and you'll find out everyone's points of view on the F-35 and it's variants.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Not too far from the original topic of the thread;

What say all of you to F-35Bs?

Fover, return to reply # 1.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37862/post-314044.html#msg314044

Complete the estimate of the situation and please present a fully developed proposal.

Thank you.

 

[FoverF]

Well,  I'm not just tossing out my personal favorite for a CF-18 replacement. I'm soliciting people's opinions as to whether they think the F-35B as a shipboard fighter would play a useful role in the CF.

I've done a good bit of research on these a/c, but am limited, obviously, by the fact that it is still very much a paper airplane, so anything said by anyone is still little more than idle speculation. After all, there hasn't even been a prototype built for the CTOL version yet (only X- plane technology demonstrators), much less the S/VTOL variant.

Regardless, I will endeavor to put together a more cogent and concrete proposal for the F-35B (particularily as a ship-borne a/c). Give me a week or so.

In the meantime, I am still wondering as to whether or not people here see a significant role for a shipboard fighter. Even if it turns out to be economically feasable, is it wanted?

 

[COBRA-6]

In the meantime, I am still wondering as to whether or not people here see a significant role for a shipboard fighter. Even if it turns out to be economically feasable, is it wanted?

Okay, I'll bite. A role for shipborne fighters? Well do we have amphibious assets that need air support? If we had the assets that could land a battle group on a beach, then I'm sure CAS would be needed. Until we have the ships to move them and assets to get them on shore, then what would the fighters be supporting? First step is the JSS to support an expeditionary group, then amphibious ships, then maybe naval CAS. 

There are all sorts of threads started here featuring some piece of shiny kit and the phrase "why doesn't the CF buy this tank/chopper/ICBM/tie-fighter?" It all comes down to priorities. We don't have a unlimited budget, so we have to buy the kit we need, to fill a required role.

Besides, the army needs chinooks first! 

 

[FoverF]

The only reason I mentioned the F-35B is because we're almost certain to get the F-35 (eventually). Acquiring the airframes would not really that big of a leap. It could probably be accomplished (if there was a will) with a relative minimum of the usual garbage that accompanies all major CF acquisition programs (Provided, of course, that the F-35B program even survives the usual garbage that accompanies all major Pentagon acquisition programs, and doesn't get cancelled). It would be kind of like purchasing the Merlin, since we've already bought the Cormorant.
oh, wait... :,
Of course the amount of airframe commonality depends on which variants we get.

And as far as the whole ship-borne-fighter-thing goes, I was more thinking of giving the navy an increased capability in the more, well, 'naval' roles, like fleet air defence, anti-shipping, cruise missile defence, ESM, things like that. Of course, they would need a lot of UAV support to be effective, but that should be in place already, long before the F-35 becomes operational.
Or would having the extra eyes provided by UAVs and/or Cyclones be sufficient most of the time?