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

Boeing to offer P-8 as CP-140 Replacement

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,779
Points
1,060
Interesting…I’ll be CRA before this might happen I’d wager, but would love to see these sitting on the aprons at ZX and QQ.

P-8 offered as Aurora replacement

Boeing on Feb. 10 announced its intent to offer the P-8A Poseidon in response to Canada’s Request for Information (RFI) for long-range maritime patrol aircraft. The Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft (CMMA) project will replace the Royal Canadian Air Force fleet of CP-140 Aurora aircraft and enhance its anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities.

With more than 140 aircraft in service, the P-8 has executed more than 400,000 mishap free flight-hours around the globe. Militaries that operate or have selected the P-8 include the U.S. Navy, the United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force, Royal Australian Air Force, Royal New Zealand Air Force, Indian Navy, Royal Norwegian Air Force, Republic of Korea Navy and German Navy.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
6,348
Points
1,090
Better to base out of major cities, where you can tap into AC and WJ pilots in the Air Res for additional capacity, and into extant simulators, giving career stability in locations where spouses can find employment, with the understanding that crews will spend 2-3 months away every year (sometimes forward based at ZX and QQ).
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,222
Points
1,090
Better to base out of major cities, where you can tap into AC and WJ pilots in the Air Res for additional capacity, and into extant simulators, giving career stability in locations where spouses can find employment, with the understanding that crews will spend 2-3 months away every year (sometimes forward based at ZX and QQ).
According to the latest census, mid size cities seem to be rather popular. BTW Comox is not the end of the world with its good weather, golfing and skiing close by and reasonably priced housing. Cripes even Greenwood isn't out Siberia!

 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,779
Points
1,060
Comox is expensive; like my Dad did in the late 70s/early 80s, I’ve avoided a Comox posting for housing costs and, for me, the “no PLD” factor. Greenwood is seen as…undesirable by some (many?).

Personally, I’d of loved it if they had moved LRP and SAR to Shearwater before selling off a large portion of the runway. Close to blue water, the RCN, MH…and a better QOL for members and families. But…that didn’t happen.

Politics; Comox and Greenwood are likely significant revenue generators in their locations…
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,222
Points
1,090
Comox is expensive; Greenwood is seen as…undesirable by some (many?).

Personally, I’d of loved it if they had moved LRP and SAR to Shearwater before selling off a large portion of the runway. Close to blue water, the RCN, MH…and a better QOL for members and families. But…that didn’t happen.

Politics; Comox and Greenwood are likely significant revenue generators in their locations…
Re Shearwater: I wonder if the RCAF didn't like the thought of their LRPA folks being too close to those traitorous MH types and even worse the RCN and didn't fight hard to keep the runway!
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,890
Points
1,260
Better to base out of major cities, where you can tap into AC and WJ pilots in the Air Res for additional capacity, and into extant simulators, giving career stability in locations where spouses can find employment, with the understanding that crews will spend 2-3 months away every year (sometimes forward based at ZX and QQ).
QQ already has WJ 737s operating out there.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,779
Points
1,060
Their sims would be limited to "flight deck" (which, of course is better than nothing). Maybe a central LRP MOB (with all the required sims/OPTs/PTTs/PCTs) with QQ and ZX as "FOBs" would be a consideration to look at...

I'll watch it all unfold from my wheelchair after my afternoon "old folks home nap"! 😁
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,890
Points
1,260
Honest question:

Aside from fighters and SAR, why do we need squadrons on both sides of the country? Or in the case of Tac Hel, multiple areas? We don't even do it with our Strat and tactical airlift (specifically the C-130J - the other Hercs are tasked with SAR so I'll let that slide).

Again, aside from SAR or fighters, speed to the location isn't generally the most important factor. If MH needs to sail on a ship, have the aircraft fly out (or transport it by whatever means) to meet it. If Tac Hel needs to go on exercise with the Army, fly it out to Wainwright/Gagetown/wherever for the exercise.

You can even keep the number of squadrons (and CO positions) but just put them all in one place for each fleet.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,593
Points
1,140
Honest question:

Aside from fighters and SAR, why do we need squadrons on both sides of the country? Or in the case of Tac Hel, multiple areas? We don't even do it with our Strat and tactical airlift (specifically the C-130J - the other Hercs are tasked with SAR so I'll let that slide).

Again, aside from SAR or fighters, speed to the location isn't generally the most important factor. If MH needs to sail on a ship, have the aircraft fly out (or transport it by whatever means) to meet it. If Tac Hel needs to go on exercise with the Army, fly it out to Wainwright/Gagetown/wherever for the exercise.

You can even keep the number of squadrons (and CO positions) but just put them all in one place for each fleet.
To Dilute the parent service influence as best as one can...
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,779
Points
1,060
Honest question:

Aside from fighters and SAR, why do we need squadrons on both sides of the country? Or in the case of Tac Hel, multiple areas? We don't even do it with our Strat and tactical airlift (specifically the C-130J - the other Hercs are tasked with SAR so I'll let that slide).

Again, aside from SAR or fighters, speed to the location isn't generally the most important factor. If MH needs to sail on a ship, have the aircraft fly out (or transport it by whatever means) to meet it. If Tac Hel needs to go on exercise with the Army, fly it out to Wainwright/Gagetown/wherever for the exercise.

You can even keep the number of squadrons (and CO positions) but just put them all in one place for each fleet.

I don't think we need LRP Sqn on both coasts - as you've pointed out before, the RAAF doesn't do business that way. Do we need to, or do we just continue to do it "because". I think there's some trg and personnel efficiency to be gained by centralizing. The question would be "where"; where could LRP centralize and still be able to do things like Devils Deep, COREXs, etc? Thorney Island...pick it up and move it; will the civilian staff also uproot? (just a few 'spoiler' thoughts that always come to mind thinking about this...)

Tac Hel - I do see the benefit of locating them closer to Army bases; CTC and 403 co-located "makes sense" and that kind of flows to the other Tac Avn Sqns (Edmonton - 408, Pet and the proximity Sqn's).
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,779
Points
1,060
Ya it’s a nice looking aircraft. I am not sure how the 2 of them compare in reality for endurance, sensors, data processing/networking, stores capacity (search and kill).
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,364
Points
1,060
best I can do


P-8
General characteristics

  • Crew: Flight: two; Mission: seven
  • Capacity: 19,800 lb (9,000 kg)
  • Length: 129 ft 5 in (39.47 m)
  • Wingspan: 123 ft 6 in (37.64 m)
  • Height: 42 ft 1 in (12.83 m)
  • Empty weight: 138,300 lb (62,730 kg)
  • Max takeoff weight: 189,200 lb (85,820 kg)
  • Powerplant: 2 × CFM56-7B27A turbofans, 27,300 lbf (121 kN) thrust each
Performance

  • Maximum speed: 564 mph (907 km/h, 490 kn)
  • Cruise speed: 509 mph (815 km/h, 440 kn)
  • Combat range: 1,381 mi (2,222 km, 1,200 nmi) ; 4 hours on station (for anti-submarine warfare mission)
  • Ferry range: 5,200 mi (8,300 km, 4,500 nmi)
  • Service ceiling: 41,000 ft (12,496 m)
Armament

Avionics

P-1​

General characteristics

  • Crew: 3 flight crew: 3 mission crew: 8[64][65]
  • Length: 38 m (124 ft 8 in)
  • Wingspan: 35.4 m (116 ft 2 in)
  • Height: 12.1 m (39 ft 8 in)
  • Max takeoff weight: 79,700 kg (175,708 lb)
  • Powerplant: 4 × IHI Corporation F7 turbofan engines, 60 kN (13,000 lbf) thrust each
Performance

  • Maximum speed: 996 km/h (619 mph, 538 kn)
  • Cruise speed: 833 km/h (518 mph, 450 kn)
  • Range: 8,000 km (5,000 mi, 4,300 nmi)
  • Combat range: 2,500 km (1,600 mi, 1,300 nmi)
  • Service ceiling: 13,520 m (44,360 ft)
Armament

Avionics

  • Radar: Toshiba, Active Electronically Scanned Array radar system
  • Sonar: NEC, multi-static sound navigation system sound
  • Anti-submarine systems:SHINKO ELECTRIC CO.LTD., Advanced combat direction system
  • Other: Mitsubishi, Electronic countermeasures (CMD, RWR, MWS, ESM)
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,859
Points
1,010
Operating out of, or based out of?

Leveraging their maintenance and sims so we can spend less on them is another way to stretch defence dollars...
I can think of serious ITAR issues, there. Plus, I am betting that the cockpit of a P8 only superficially resembles the cockpit of a 737 (that whole armament/sensor/datalink thing).

Also, if you intend on (presumably) basing LRP aircraft at (a) major Canadian airport, how do you intend on finding the explosive safe distance in a major urban area for the kill stores that go with it?
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,550
Points
1,140
best I can do


P-8
General characteristics

  • Crew: Flight: two; Mission: seven
  • Capacity: 19,800 lb (9,000 kg)
  • Length: 129 ft 5 in (39.47 m)
  • Wingspan: 123 ft 6 in (37.64 m)
  • Height: 42 ft 1 in (12.83 m)
  • Empty weight: 138,300 lb (62,730 kg)
  • Max takeoff weight: 189,200 lb (85,820 kg)
  • Powerplant: 2 × CFM56-7B27A turbofans, 27,300 lbf (121 kN) thrust each
Performance

  • Maximum speed: 564 mph (907 km/h, 490 kn)
  • Cruise speed: 509 mph (815 km/h, 440 kn)
  • Combat range: 1,381 mi (2,222 km, 1,200 nmi) ; 4 hours on station (for anti-submarine warfare mission)
  • Ferry range: 5,200 mi (8,300 km, 4,500 nmi)
  • Service ceiling: 41,000 ft (12,496 m)
Armament

Avionics

P-1​

General characteristics

  • Crew: 3 flight crew: 3 mission crew: 8[64][65]
  • Length: 38 m (124 ft 8 in)
  • Wingspan: 35.4 m (116 ft 2 in)
  • Height: 12.1 m (39 ft 8 in)
  • Max takeoff weight: 79,700 kg (175,708 lb)
  • Powerplant: 4 × IHI Corporation F7 turbofan engines, 60 kN (13,000 lbf) thrust each
Performance

  • Maximum speed: 996 km/h (619 mph, 538 kn)
  • Cruise speed: 833 km/h (518 mph, 450 kn)
  • Range: 8,000 km (5,000 mi, 4,300 nmi)
  • Combat range: 2,500 km (1,600 mi, 1,300 nmi)
  • Service ceiling: 13,520 m (44,360 ft)
Armament

Avionics

  • Radar: Toshiba, Active Electronically Scanned Array radar system
  • Sonar: NEC, multi-static sound navigation system sound
  • Anti-submarine systems:SHINKO ELECTRIC CO.LTD., Advanced combat direction system
  • Other: Mitsubishi, Electronic countermeasures (CMD, RWR, MWS, ESM)
Well the speed and range of the Japanese plane is nothing to sneeze at. Quick to get on target (handy when you've got huge distances to cover like we do) and able to stay onsite longer are great advantages.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
6,348
Points
1,090
Mirabel enters the conversation.

As well, airframes and ordinance do not necessarily have to be co located.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,890
Points
1,260
Well the speed and range of the Japanese plane is nothing to sneeze at. Quick to get on target (handy when you've got huge distances to cover like we do) and able to stay onsite longer are great advantages.
I'm not sure the Japanese are willing (or allowed) to export that.
 
Top