Seeking an excuse to spend Defence $$ on a Bombardier plane

[SeaKingTacco]

Question on this as it certainly relates to the suitability of Bombardier aircraft for an MPA role.

If low temperature of a hardpoint-mounted torpedo is the main issue, is this not something that would be easier to resolve than re-designing an aircraft to include an internal weapons bay?  Is it an issue with the type of propellant used in torpedoes?  I'm assuming that it's not the electronics since missiles and sensors are regularly externally mounted and don't appear to have any issues.

Solving this would appear to make a whole range of Bombardier aircraft (from the Q-400 to the Global Express to the C Series) much more attractive as possible replacements for the CP-140's.

No. Redesigning the torpedo to resist colder transport temperatures would be orders of magnitude more difficult (and expensive) than an aircraft modification. To do that would take a fundamental rethink of any torpedo that I am aware of available within the NATO family.

 

[Zoomie]

Problem is, there are lots of people who read these threads.  Some are CAF mbrs who know SFA about air ops let alone LRP ops.  Some are reporters, Joe and Jane Taxpayer...all they see is a RCAF pilot saying the 140 is a waste of taxdollars. 

I feel your pain right there when joe-public and CAF members explicitly state that the RCAF shouldn't be in the SAR business. 

WRT the -140, it's here to stay for a bit - we've expended the $$ to put new wing boxes in etc.  I just don't see our military investing the capital needed for a torp-dropping, sub-hunter/killer.  Time will tell.  I'll be retired and flying families to the Caribbean for their March Break.

 

[dimsum]

I feel your pain right there when joe-public and CAF members explicitly state that the RCAF shouldn't be in the SAR business. 

You mean it *shouldn't* be a task assigned to the Coast Guard?  :stirpot:

 

[GR66]

No. Redesigning the torpedo to resist colder transport temperatures would be orders of magnitude more difficult (and expensive) than an aircraft modification. To do that would take a fundamental rethink of any torpedo that I am aware of available within the NATO family.

I'm certainly in no position to argue the point with you, but I'm curious as to why torpedoes are so much more affected by cold than other systems like missiles.  I wonder if the same was true of WWI & WWII era destroyers that operated in the far North. 

You often see pictures of ships virtually encased in ice but were their torpedoes not basically mounted externally on the deck of the ship?  Were they rendered useless in those theatres or did they have some sort of heating system, or was the design of those torpedoes fundamentally different than modern designs?

 

[MarkOttawa]

At DID--SAAB's likely-armed Bombardier Global 6000-based AEW plane:

...
February 18/16: Following a custom $1.27 billion two-aircraft deal to provide an early warning and control (AEW&C) system to the UAE, Saab has officially launched external link the new early warning aircraft to the wider market. The GlobalEye combines the Erieye ER active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar with Bombardier’s Global 6000 business jet. The Erieye had been previously offered on the Embraer 145, Saab 2000 and Saab 340, but its incorporation on the Global 6000 will allow it much greater altitude and endurance capabilities, flying at 11,000 ft for 11 hours. The business jet will likely external link be armed with Saab’s RBS-15 anti-ship missile and a lightweight torpedo; possibly a EuroTorp weapon [emphasis added]. Saab’s announcement comes as they look to provide maritime, land, and air surveillance capabilities to countries increasingly involved in anti-terrorism, anti-piracy, or territorial monitoring operations....
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uae-buys-saabs-erieye-aewc-aircraft-05951/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Bearpaw]

To GR66:

The torpedo problem is the external mounting----a major component of the fuel used in the Mark 46 torpedo is Propylene glycol dinitrate which solidifies at -27.7C.  The simplest solution is to house the torpedos internally before use.

Bearpaw

 

[GR66]

To GR66:

The torpedo problem is the external mounting----a major component of the fuel used in the Mark 46 torpedo is Propylene glycol dinitrate which solidifies at -27.7C.  The simplest solution is to house the torpedos internally before use.

Bearpaw

Thanks for the clarification.  I suspected that it must be a propulsion issue.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I feel your pain right there when joe-public and CAF members explicitly state that the RCAF shouldn't be in the SAR business.

There is no better place for SAR to be then with the same SAR Sqn's it has been with since...well before I was born.

WRT the -140, it's here to stay for a bit - we've expended the $$ to put new wing boxes in etc.  I just don't see our military investing the capital needed for a torp-dropping, sub-hunter/killer.  Time will tell.  I'll be retired and flying families to the Caribbean for their March Break.

I am CRA the year the 140 is supposed to hang up it's gloves.  It would be nice to see the next generation of Pilots and GIBs with a new platform, just like my father did when he retired (Argus FE) in '81 when the Aurora arrived.

I will be CRA in 2030...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Thanks for the clarification.  I suspected that it must be a propulsion issue.

Just to add quickly, the bombbay on the Aurora is heated using bleed air from the engines. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Just to add quickly, the bombbay on the Aurora is heated using bleed air from the engines.

Otherwise, the Otto Fuel would be to cold to drink

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You mean it *shouldn't* be a task assigned to the Coast Guard?  :stirpot:

There are "2 Coast Guards" one which does SAR and lives for it and then the big ship guys who do SAR grudgingly off the side of the deck and mutter that it is interfering with their work schedule. From what I see CCG management would like to be completely out of inshore SAR.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

From what I see CCG management would like to be completely out of inshore SAR.

Oh boy! They must just LOVE   operating the Mid-shore boats just to drive the RCMP around.  :nod:

 

[MarkOttawa]

This Bombardier ISR chance sliding well right:

JSTARS Contract Award Slips; IOC in ‘mid-2020s’

The Air Force will delay an expected contract award for the service’s next-generation ground surveillance aircraft by as much as six months, at the same time giving itself more wiggle room to declare the new fleet operational in the 2020s.

Senior Air Force and Department of Defense acquisition leaders recently revised the acquisition strategy for the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) recapitalization program, according to Air Force spokesman Justin Oakes. The new plan allows more time in the early stages of JSTARS development to reduce overall program risk, Oakes added.

The service may also postpone the deadline for declaring initial operating capability (IOC) for the program. The Air Force had planned to declare IOC for the JSTARS recap in fiscal year 2023, but on Feb. 19 a spokesman projected IOC would take place “in the mid-2020s.”

“We will continue to update our projections as the JSTARS program progresses,” according to Air Force spokesman Maj. Rob Leese...

The Air Force officially kicked off the competition to replace the aging E-8 JSTARS in August 2015, awarding a trio of competitors each a pre-EMD contract, for a total of $31.4 million. Northrop, which builds the existing aircraft, is teamed with Gulfstream and its G550 business jet, with L-3 helping with integration. Lockheed Martin is working with Bombardier on a proposal based on the Canadian company’s Global 6000 business jet [emphasis added]. Meanwhile, Boeing is offering a modified version of its 737-700 commercial airliner...
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2016/02/19/jstars-contract-award-slips-ioc-mid-2020s/80570524/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Zoomie]

Boeing will win the JSTARS recap - that's my bet. 

Interesting FACTOID alert:
  - current USAF E-8 JSTARS are where our old 707s ended up.

 

[blacktriangle]

Question for the LRP/FWSAR guys -

Could the same platform be effective as the basis for both the FWSAR replacement, and a future LRPA? Or would there be too many compromises required for the same airframe (minus role-specific modifications) to be successful in both mission sets?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

It would depend on 'the aircraft' IMO.  LPRAs have a requirement to carry things like SKADs and torps, some kind of internal/external sonobuoy storage/deployment system.  FWSAR has to be able to do SAR in places like the west coast, and IIRC the SAR SMEs didn't think a Herc would work well in places the Buffalo now can.

The one platform that comes to mind that would work for both (in basic theory, at least) would be something like the J Herc, but we know that one isn't in the running for FWSAR.

More importantly, FWSAR is rolling now, and the MPA is supposed to be replaced in 14 years...but wait for the extensions on the fleet when that comes, just like has been done with the SeaKing and Hornet. 

 

[Zoomie]

LRP = fast, internal/external stores - pressurized/climate controlled

FWSAR = slower, maneuverable, large(r) internal capacity with ramp (ie to build and then dispatch heavy equipment, survival gear, pump, food, radios, etc).

One fleet would have to take quite a capability cut in order for a mixed-role fleet option.  European nations conduct SAR using pressurized civilian variants - they don't maintain any sort of ability to drop survival gear or PJs.  They have an extensive fleet of RWSAR for that role - Canada is too vast to have a dedicated Rotory Wing SAR asset that can cover the country.

 

[CougarKing]

Perhaps Saab's use of these 2 Bombardier aircraft as MPA platforms may help boost Bombardier sales?

Aviation Week

Big Fish – Saab Bids On High-End Antisubmarine Warfare
Feb 18, 2016 Bill Sweetman

The Global 6000-based version of Swordfish carries underwing torpedoes and pods containing air-sea rescue supplies.

Saab wants to re-energize its attempt to join the small club of companies that produce antisubmarine warfare aircraft.

For some years, the Swedish company has been offering the Swordfish ASW aircraft, based on the long-out-of-production Saab 2000 regional airliner. Today, however, it announces a new Swordfish project, with a choice of Bombardier platforms: the Global 6000 business jet and the Q400 turboprop airliner.
(...SNIPPED)

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Groovy, as long as the RCAF stay away from them.  ;D

The writing in that article strikes me as 'cheesy' and a little on the "not really sure what we're talking about" side.

[The Global 6000 can patrol for eight hours at 1,000 nm in ASW trim, Mevius says.]

Not sure I understand this...they're flying at 125 kts?  Regardless, I bet those numbers are pretty high compared to the reality people would find.  Add on the low level, banking and cranking, climbing up and decending stuff, plus the drag from their 'lightweight electronic torps', not to mention the added weight of a (hopeful) sono load...

 

[Kirkhill]

Groovy, as long as the RCAF stay away from them.  ;D

Why?