P-8 Poseidon

[fireman1867]

This discussion is very academic unless Boeing can provide a better than 30% serviceability rate with P-8 were no better off than right now - just sayin' 

Just tryin to lighten things up here jeez

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Fover F-

And how, precisely, do you propose that we communciate with your RQ-4s?  Did you factor in the cost of developing and launching a uniquely Canadian satellite constellation to give us full time coverage over the entire Canadian AOR to provide up/down link capabilities?  How many Jimmys will we require in excess of our current establishment to make that work (hint: way, way more than you think)?  Or do you propose that we just surf on US DoD Satellites?  Suppsoe we want to do something with our RQ-4s  that the we don't want to tell the Americans about?  How are you going to overcome the requirement for dual redundant comms links for control, when operating in controlled airspace?

I love when people propose UAVs as the panacea and wish away the entire comms piece...

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

WingsofFury:  So a major/major mission for our fighters is to identify vessels off Canadian shores in peacetime? 

The key word is "core" for our Air Force; from Ex-Dragoon I drew the (perhaps inaccurate) inference that USN fast air in fact did much of the ship identification for us, when needed to be done by fighters, in waters off Canada.  Clearly ship identification generally is a much more central role for USN fighters than for our Air Force ones--does anyone know how often our Hornets are actually employed doing this?  Not that ours do not fly over water (Cathay Pacific:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/810111--bomb-threat-forces-fighter-jets-to-escort-plane-to-vancouver
First Gulf War:
http://www.richthistle.com/aviation-articles-othermenu-133/74-cf-18-hornets-in-the-gulf-war ).

The point is that the ability of the F-35 to use its stealth in a peacetime maritime patrol role in waters off Canada does not seem to me an important factor to use when justifying its acquisition.  Along with SAR capability.

Other than fighters what other of our aircraft intercept Bears?

Ex-Dragoon:

Fighters identifying vessels in waters off Canada in peacetime, and subs doing fisheries work?  To repeat.

I'm done.

Mark
Ottawa

Its called picture compilation and you use the assets you have available to know whats out there. The sooner you have positive IDs the quicker you can determine who is the threat and who is not.

 

[aesop081]

Or do you propose that we just surf on US DoD Satellites? 

This one is Key......they dont let us on their SATCOM network unless they have to. They usualy dont have to.

 

[aesop081]

Maintenance costs tend to be based largely around 2 factors, 1) how much airplane (mass) are you trying to fly? And 2) how many engines are you using?

With aircraft like the CP-140 and the P-8, you could not be more wrong. Avionics.

Aircrew training requirements:

CP-140        18 x 12 crew = 216 crew

I have no idea where on Earth you pulled that number from.

The long and the short of it is that this new fleet should require fewer crew.

But they are based on bogus numbers so...............

Number of Airframes Required:

so I propose what I think we can afford. 

The Government determined that what you propose is not affordable. Hence AIMP 3 going ahead.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The sooner you have positive IDs the quicker you can determine who is the threat and who is not.

How is that affected by LO? And why do you need an F-35 for this instead of any other aircraft?

 

[WingsofFury]

How is that affected by LO? And why do you need an F-35 for this instead of any other aircraft?

Right - because foreign ships don't have airborne radar, correct?

And nobody is saying that we need the F-35 specifically for this - it is just one of the roles that it has the ability to perform when necessary.

Case in point - if a Hornet is tasked to a QRA facility in say, Vancouver, and it's out on an intercept, after said intercept, if it was necessary to check out a suspect boat in the vicinity then the Hornet could do it - there's a reason the light is on the side of the plane you know.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Right - because foreign ships don't have airborne radar, correct?

More or less. There are other larger issues.

And nobody is saying that we need the F-35 specifically for this - it is just one of the roles that it has the ability to perform when necessary.

Actually, that's how this whole pile-on started.

Mark said:

Also interesting that the Air Force is touting the F-35 as being useful for sneaking up on and identifying ships.

and then Ex-Dragoon said:

Mark have you ever tracked low flying  fast moving targets at sea?

and

MarkOttawa I am waiting for an answer or a retraction. Maybe a Verbal is warranted to keep you in your own lanes.

Milnet.Ca Staff

and even more:

We use fast air quite a bit in locating and identifying ships. The US Navy has been very helpful in this regard.

You put a lot of "stuff" in these forums with little to back it up case and point above, do you think you are immune to the forum guidelines where you feel you cannot be challenged to back up your claims?

Milnet.Ca Staff

Mark clearly indiccated that the F-35's LO abilities were being used as a justification for this and got crapped on. I'd like to hear just what Ex-Dragoons thoughts are in how LO affects the ID role. Clearly he has some strong thoughts and in-depth knowledge on the issue or he wouldn't have unloaded on Mark that strongly.

Case in point - if a Hornet is tasked to a QRA facility in say, Vancouver, and it's out on an intercept, after said intercept, if it was necessary to check out a suspect boat in the vicinity then the Hornet could do it - there's a reason the light is on the side of the plane you know.

Sure. I don't see any reason an F-35 would be any better at that than any other fighter although I'll wait for Ex-Dragoons experienced opinion on this.

 

[MarkOttawa]

As another diversion of sorts, a May 2010 news release from the Canadian Commercial Corporation:

Successful completion of contract for Maritime Patrol Dash 8 planes by Field Aviation and Bombardier (near bottom)
http://www.ccc.ca/eng/abo_newsroom_inTheNews.cfm

CCC is proud to report that the contract for Maritime Patrol Dash 8 planes has been successfully carried out and closed-out. The project has been active since 2004, when Canadian avionics company, Field Aviation began pursuing a Maritime Patrol requirement with Customs and Border Protection in the United States. As the contract was moving to award, Field Aviation knew exactly where to turn in the Canadian government to ensure a strong contract structure which met the Federal Acquisition Regulations in the United States.

Using its in-depth knowledge of complex contracting issues and its experience working with the U.S. Government, CCC worked with Field Aviation, Bombardier Special Missions, and an American prime contractor to structure a contract that was satisfactory to all parties for the supply of seven Maritime Patrol Dash 8 planes. The planes were manufactured by Bombardier, with Field Aviation providing engineering modifications to transform the aircraft for maritime patrol usage. This particular contract benefited from CCC?s expertise because the Corporation was able to help the two Canadian suppliers navigate certain complex U.S. DoD requirements. Through its specialised knowledge and contract management resources, CCC was also able to certify that the cost to the U.S. government was fair and reasonable. CCC's involvement kept all parties in agreement throughout contract negotiations, and ensured that a tight and interdependent schedule was met.

From Field Aviation:
http://www.fieldav.com/about/news/detail.aspx?news=1416

...
The primary elements of the surveillance system for CBP's Dash 8 MPAs consist of Raytheon's SeaVue 2032I Search Radar, L-3 Wescam's MX-15 EO/IR turret feeding sensor information to ATK Integrated System's ISADS Mission Management System.

Field Aviation is internationally recognized for its unique engineered solutions and the modification and conversion of aircraft for special purpose applications. These capabilities have made Field a world leader in the adaptation of commercial aircraft for special mission use - ranging from flight inspection to electronic surveillance and maritime patrol. Maritime patrol aircraft that Field Aviation has modified are today flying with customers in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ecuador, Iceland, Japan, Sweden and USA [emphasis added].

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Scott]

More or less. There are other larger issues.

Actually, that's how this whole pile-on started.

Mark clearly indiccated that the F-35's LO abilities were being used as a justification for this and got crapped on. I'd like to hear just what Ex-Dragoons thoughts are in how LO affects the ID role. Clearly he has some strong thoughts and in-depth knowledge on the issue or he wouldn't have unloaded on Mark that strongly.

Sure. I don't see any reason an F-35 would be any better at that than any other fighter although I'll wait for Ex-Dragoons experienced opinion on this.

You here for discussion or to fling poo? If you've got a problem with "how" the discussion went then perhaps you should use the report to mod feature instead of taking the thread off topic.

Staff

 

[MarkOttawa]

UK maritime patrol thinking post-Nimrod:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/01/24/AW_01_24_2011_p36-284313.xml

...
Program-specific issues on the Defense Ministry’s near-term planning agenda include...whether the planned Scavenger medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aircraft program can take on missions associated with the canceled Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft and R1 Sentinel, which is due to be withdrawn from service once Afghanistan operations wind down.

The Scavenger system—which is slated to be developed with France under an agreement signed last year—is still in the formative stage. Early plans called for a nominal 2015 in-service date, but 2018 is now seen as more realistic.

Although the exact mission for Scavenger has not been finalized, Air ­Commo. Malcolm Brecht, director of the Air Staff, notes that with the decision to retire the R1 Sentinel, “we will look to mitigate its loss as part of the Scavenger program.”

Scavenger also could serve as a gap-filler in the maritime patrol realm, although the British military is already exploring the extent to which some of the roles the Nimrod was to perform can be reallocated. For example, C-130s could be used for search-and-rescue missions, E-3Ds for sea surveillance, and helicopters and ships for anti-submarine warfare...

On the other hand:

Scrapping the RAF's £4bn Nimrod fleet 'risks UK security'
Exclusive: The scrapping of the RAF’s £4 billion fleet of Nimrod surveillance aircraft will create a “massive security gap”, the country’s leading military figures have warned.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8284935/Scrapping-the-RAFs-4bn-Nimrod-fleet-risks-UK-security.html

In an open letter to the Daily Telegraph,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/8284273/The-destruction-of-nine-new-Nimrod-jets-is-folly.html
former defence chiefs from all three services say the decision to destroy nine MRA4 Nimrods to save money is “perverse” and could cause serious long-term damage to the country’s interests.

The protest over the Government’s decision in last year’s Strategic Defence and Spending Review to destroy what is regarded as a vital part of the country’s defences comes as private demolition contractors hired by the Ministry of Defence began breaking up the aircraft.

Former military chiefs believe that without the Nimrod’s surveillance technology, the country will be dangerously exposed.

The planes can detect and sink submarines, drop life rafts to sailors in trouble and play a vital role in drug-smuggling and counter-terrorism operations [the defence chiefs did not mention the last two roles--they said: "Nimrod would have provided long-range maritime and overland reconnaissance, anti-submarine surveillance, air-sea rescue co-ordination and reconnaissance support to the Navy’s Trident submarines.]...

The use of helicopters and Hercules aircraft to fulfil some of these roles “falls far short” of what the Nimrod is capable of, they warn...

Maj-Gen Julian Thompson, the former Falklands land forces ommander, condemned the scrapping of the aircraft as “absolutely bonkers”. “There will be no cover for the Trident submarine and it will be a serious loss to the anti-piracy campaign,” he added. The MoD has also been accused of failing to advise ministers of the full cost and impact of Nimrods’ loss. It will cost £200 million to scrap the aircraft and pay compensation to the manufacturers, BAE Systems. The company estimates it would have cost £200 million to make all nine aircraft airworthy.

The MoD has also not taken into account the extra costs, estimated in millions, required each year for two more Merlin anti-submarine helicopters and a Type 23 frigate that will be needed to escort Trident submarines from Faslane into deep waters.

Experts also argue that deaths at sea will be inevitable as helicopters cannot operate beyond 200 miles from a coast. In the past, Nimrods have saved lives by dropping life rafts to stranded sailors, as in 1998 when 10 fishermen were saved. Adml Lord West, the former First Sea Lord, called for the Government to at least delay the Nimrods’ destruction until a full security assessment has been made...

The letter also states:

...
Some of Nimrod’s roles in home waters can be covered by frigates, short-range Merlin anti-submarine helicopters or even the C130 Hercules. They fall short, however, of replacing the strategic multi-role contribution of Nimrod. Other countries are actually seeking to reinforce their maritime patrol capacity, with the new Boeing 737 P8A a strong contender [emphasis added]...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[WingsofFury]

He also stated that it would be a role for naval aviators and not ground based fighters, as if there is an actual difference in Canada between the two.

If you don't see, quite plainly, why a LO aircraft is better at conducting any type of reconnaissaince work then you should do your homework on LO and why it is just one of a myriad number of reasons why the JSF will perform well in that arena, amongst the other reasons being the AESA radar system.

I don't see how as how his use of the term "surprising" makes any sense in his obvious displeasure of the F-35 when, given what we do know of the plane and how it will operate - especially when compared to our Hornets - is quite factual and understood.

As for the Aurora - I love that plane.  I wish I knew more about it, and maybe one day I will.  I'm glad it's going to be around for a while yet.

With regards to using submarines, etc, for drug interdiction, see the below:

Over the years, the CF has sent long-range patrol aircraft, warships and submarines to help locate, track and intercept illegal activities. Strong surveillance capabilities are vital to the success of this mission because drug runners attempt to slip under the radar.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/commun/ml-fe/article-eng.asp?id=6685

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

He also stated that it would be a role for naval aviators and not ground based fighters, as if there is an actual difference in Canada between the two.

I agree. There is no difference in Canada.

If you don't see, quite plainly, why a LO aircraft is better at conducting any type of reconnaissaince work then you should do your homework on LO and why it is just one of a myriad number of reasons why the JSF will perform well in that arena, amongst the other reasons being the AESA radar system.

Ahhh...I think you might want to check into how radar works. For the specific situation of closing with and identifying a ship, LO won't make a bit of difference. Without getting too technical, EO systems used for visual ID get better at an arithmetic rate (ie if you halve the distance to the ship, your ability to detect the ship doubles) while the radar systems used to detect the aircraft get better at a geometric rate ( if the aircraft halves the distance to the ship, it gets 16 times easier to detect it). You're pretty unlikely to get close enough to actually ID the ship without being detected, even with LO.

You might be able to ID the ship with the AESA, but other aircraft can carry that as well. There's also the issue of being picked up through ESM on the target when you radiate.

I don't see how as how his use of the term "surprising" makes any sense in his obvious displeasure of the F-35 when, given what we do know of the plane and how it will operate - especially when compared to our Hornets - is quite factual and understood.

I don't see how the F-35 is likely to "surprise" anyone any more than the current Hornets, since LO isn't going to help them and they're unlikely to fly any lower or faster. Have I missed something on the aircraft or how we will operate it?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Just for clarification:

Can you point out just how relevant LO is in locating and identifying ships with aircraft?"

Can you please show me where I even brought up LO. If an a/c is in the area and they are willing we will definitely asked if they can identify an unknown surface contact. I brought up the US Navy because on deployment they have been very forth coming with helping us out.

"How is that affected by LO? And why do you need an F-35 for this instead of any other aircraft?"

Again where have I in particular mentioned using the F35?

Mark have you ever tracked low flying  fast moving targets at sea?

Was asked the emphasize how hard it is to detect something low and fast coming in...does not matter if its Stealth or a lear, you may miss it.

MarkOttawa I am waiting for an answer or a retraction. Maybe a Verbal is warranted to keep you in your own lanes.

Mark has a habit of posting items from his blog (and elsewhere) and not backing up a lot of his points. We (DS) have had complaints regarding this, hence he was challenged. By the forum guidelines I was doing what any Mod would do.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Can you please show me where I even brought up LO.

You jumped on Mark as soon as he brought up the Air Force "touting the F-35 as being useful for sneaking up on and identifying ships" as a justification for buying the F-35. The main difference between the F-35 and it's competitors is LO. That's been mentioned many times here.

Again where have I in particular mentioned using the F35?

Again, you jumped on Mark as soon as he brought up the F-35. Nobody mentioned any other type of fighter.

Was asked the emphasize how hard it is to detect something low and fast coming in...does not matter if its Stealth or a lear, you may miss it.

So if it doesn't matter if it's Stealth or Lear, there's no point in squashing the guy for mentioning the F-35, no?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I explained it...if you don't like it well thats your problem....not mine. I am done with you.

 

[aesop081]

Q-400 with hard points? 

And what would you put on those hard points ? Theres a reason our torps are in a heat-controlled weapons bay. Arming an ATR-72 might work for the Chilean Navy but they dont have to operate in sub...sub...sub zero weather.

Every single trade in the CF can be privatized.

Of course. But that is irrelevant to what i said. Mark (and others) seem to think that flying over the ocean and identifying merchant vessels is the only thing the Aurora does......hence why "civillian patrol" is the common cry of the ignorant.

 

[Loachman]

there's a reason the light is on the side of the plane you know.

Difference of speed between ship and CF18 + altitude at which the bomber pilot would have to operate to shine a light sideways at a ship + dark (or one wouldn't need a light) = I don't think so.

Flying formation on another aircraft (the "reason the light is on the side of the plane") at several thousand feet is a lot more relaxing than flying formation on a ship at zero feet.

I'm not an F18 pilot (thankfully - the wings don't turn and that's just not right), but I'd rather give a JTAC on the ground the ability to drop the bombs off of my aircraft by remote control than try that stunt.

 

[Green On!]

Fover F-

And how, precisely, do you propose that we communciate with your RQ-4s?  Did you factor in the cost of developing and launching a uniquely Canadian satellite constellation to give us full time coverage over the entire Canadian AOR to provide up/down link capabilities?  How many Jimmys will we require in excess of our current establishment to make that work (hint: way, way more than you think)?  Or do you propose that we just surf on US DoD Satellites?  Suppsoe we want to do something with our RQ-4s  that the we don't want to tell the Americans about?  How are you going to overcome the requirement for dual redundant comms links for control, when operating in controlled airspace?

I love when people propose UAVs as the panacea and wish away the entire comms piece...

In the case of the RQ-4B, Satcom would not be that tough of a nut to crack as the supply of C/Ku band through commercial means should address our need.  This could handle the majority of our C2 and data requirements, while additional INMARSAT and UHF DAMA access could provide the required C2 links for redundancy.  No real rocket science involved (pun intended ). 

Of course, coverage in the high arctic might be limited, but that is why manned and un-manned platforms are both required, and truly complement each other.  If we need the ability to conduct persistent, long range, broad area ISR over our sovereign territory, in my opinion, a fleet of 4-5 Global Hawks Blk 40s or BAMS would fit the bill nicely, and do it better than anything else currently fielded or in the planning stage. 


Cheers

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Green On!

I'm pretty sure that we know each other.

Look- I will stipulate up front that long range, high endurance UAVs have a place in our inventory and will eventually enter service with the CF.  I'm just not sure that I agree with your position on the availabilty of commercial satellites to meet our control segment needs- I don't thnk that they are always in the right orbits for us, that we can get all of dedicated bandwidth we need at a price that we can live with and that it would be a secure enough set up.  I also think that the support personnel bill (Comm techs, Int Ops, etc) to make this work properly has always been under- estimated.  Finally, not even the US Military has been able to convince the FAA  to allow both UAVs and civil traffic to mix, because they haven't been able to build a compelling safety of flight case.  The case will be eventually built- I just don't think it will happen until around 2020.

Good discussion.