• 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
2,458
Points
1,060
Earlier in this thread, I was saying "...people discount the common parts...” aspect to fleets in NATO/with Allies.


There's a recent article about Dynamic Manta in The Aurora Newspaper FB page that echos what I'd said.



Ex DYNAMIC MANTA kicked off this year February 18. The NATO-led exercise is the largest annual ex of its kind, vital to sharpen the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) skills of participating units in real world operations. This year the Royal Canadian Air Force detachment worked directly alongside the Italians and Germans, while also operating closely with American, British, French and Greek military units.

The aim of the ex is to provide training opportunities for units at the tactical level, with a focus on air subsurface cooperation that includes coordinated ASW operations. This year’s ex provided valuable opportunities to crews from both 407 and 405 (Long Range Patrol) squadrons to improve their ASW skills while exercising interoperability among NATO allies. Using current and emerging tactical doctrine, the crews were able to locate, track and attack opposing submarines while providing support to a friendly surface fleet.

The maintenance team was kept busy around the clock with a nose landing gear replacement, propeller blade boot repair and multiple flight control snags. A constant flow of maple syrup to our German partners, operating their P3 next to our CP140s, helped obtain the parts we needed until the RCAF C17 arrived!

The last part isn't exactly flattering on the RCAF and CAF in more than one context. (1) if there had been no allies P-3s in location, we would have been SOL (2) there is a seriously lack of air transport capability in the RCAF that can't keep up with demand (this isn't new and isn't limited to exercises, I've seen this happen before on deployments).
 

Dale Denton

Full Member
Reaction score
132
Points
580
Anyone know why Australia cancelled their Reaper buy last minute? Has the use of drones and UAVs dramatically changed since their GWOT maturity to something new?

Should we just bite the bullet and buy larger fleet of P-8s for ASW, but change RPAS to something (fashionable) TB-2 sized and focused on the north?

Is there some way to have P-8s to control or work together with UAVs? Similar to Loyal Wingman but for ASW?
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
5,542
Points
1,260
Anyone know why Australia cancelled their Reaper buy last minute?

Speaking to Janes , a DoD spokesperson said that the decision was made based on the need to prioritise cyber security.


Has the use of drones and UAVs dramatically changed since their GWOT maturity to something new?
The capabilities are always evolving.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,458
Points
1,060
Should we just bite the bullet and buy larger fleet of P-8s for ASW, but change and buy RPAS to include something MALE (eg - MQ-9) and HALE (eg RQ-4/BAMS-D) and focus on significant domestic and international operations? the north?

Certainly, we should!! :D

Is there some way to have P-8s to control or work together with UAVs? Similar to Loyal Wingman but for ASW?

Dimsum...you track this stuff better than most I think?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,447
Points
1,040
...for parts of it. I didn't even realize that the Mk-54 is essentially a kit bolted onto a Mk-46.
Basically, you pull out everything forward of the propellor and add in new stuff, including a little bit of length. I suppose if you tear down a house and leave up only one original wall it counts as a renovation right?

Anyone know why Australia cancelled their Reaper buy last minute? Has the use of drones and UAVs dramatically changed since their GWOT maturity to something new?

Should we just bite the bullet and buy larger fleet of P-8s for ASW, but change RPAS to something (fashionable) TB-2 sized and focused on the north?

Is there some way to have P-8s to control or work together with UAVs? Similar to Loyal Wingman but for ASW?
I can only infer from this that Australia's cybersecurity is contained within their military. In Canada, it's its own organization with its own funding, and the standards are to be followed by the Military. Offensive cyber warfare however is a military thing. CSEC and others work at it from a different angle. They all talk to each other.

As for the Loyal Wingman I was coming to this thread to ask the question. @Eye In The Sky in your experience what could a Loyal Wingman type do that would help? Just drop sonobuoys in a pattern for you? Or other stuff?
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
5,542
Points
1,260
I can only infer from this that Australia's cybersecurity is contained within their military. In Canada, it's its own organization with its own funding, and the standards are to be followed by the Military. Offensive cyber warfare however is a military thing. CSEC and others work at it from a different angle. They all talk to each other.

Not quite. It's similar to Canada - the lead organization is the Australian Signals Directorate.


As for the Loyal Wingman I was coming to this thread to ask the question. @Eye In The Sky in your experience what could a Loyal Wingman type do that would help? Just drop sonobuoys in a pattern for you? Or other stuff?
Complete WAG, but probably more monitoring of said pattern.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,458
Points
1,060
As for the Loyal Wingman I was coming to this thread to ask the question. @Eye In The Sky in your experience what could a Loyal Wingman type do that would help? Just drop sonobuoys in a pattern for you? Or other stuff?

To add to Dimsums mention of assisting in monitoring the sono field...in theory, thinking like a dry sensor type, put a decent surface search radar on it, and a EOIR ball....you'd be able to extend those 'sensor bubbles' and do concurrent "on tops" of anything you might want to investigate. These seem, to me at least, as enablers/enhances in the "detect/deter" game. I'd take gas over the weight of any ESM system...

I'd even look at putting a MAD system on the RPAs, or 1 on every 2 or 3 systems, but only if the trade off in fuel/endurance is minimal. I think MSA (multi-static acoustics) is the future; MAD is a "feel good/confirmatory" sensor, not a great "search" sensor. My 2 cents, which is worth about 1 cent. :)

I see modern airborne ASW going the way the USN is moving/have moved to; higher altitude flight profile for the majority of the time. Descending and climbing (1) reduces endurance (fuel burn) and (2) decreases RF range (monitoring the pattern). Better to keep the mothership up high....(this is just me thinking off the top of my head about TTPs, while sitting here).

My quick/dirty opinion on the current P8 layout (I've been in them), there would be room for a dual console (I'm picturing the TWC on the Cyclone) to add in a workstation setup for an 2 x additional "AES OPs" to operate 2 x ASW "wingpersons"; with the speed things happen in ASW, I'd want direct control of those systems, with next-to-zero time delay and complete OPCON to the TAC/Skipper on the mothership. Off the top of my head, I am visualizing 1 x MPA with 2 x Wing"person"'s.

Search stores; MPA and RPA carried and dispensed. Kill stores; MPA only (initially). v1 to v2 T & E would include 'remote kill stores' options.

Thru AAR and larger crew sizes, return our LRP aircraft to the crew day length the Argus crew had. They did, we could do it again.

Again...me completely spitballing off the top my head as I type (I wish we were doing this now, and I was part of the project!).
 
Last edited:

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,458
Points
1,060
initial delivery 10 yrs from now JC!

I've been saying, I will be CRA long before this happens (51 years old now). I've also watched the MH and Fighter projects swirl and swirl...

Keep in mind, Block 4 is not fleet-wide yet for the '140; there's been no return on investment on that project yet.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
10,416
Points
1,360
Keep in mind, Block 4 is not fleet-wide yet for the '140; there's been no return on investment on that project yet.
🧠

I don’t think our politicians have enough fortitude to follow Kenny Rogers’ wise words…particularly if it comes to impacting Canada’s ‘Industrial Troika’. (Bombardier-IMP-Irving)
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
978
Points
1,040
🧠

I don’t think our politicians have enough fortitude to follow Kenny Rogers’ wise words…particularly if it comes to impacting Canada’s ‘Industrial Troika’. (Bombardier-IMP-Irving)
Troika? Its Dos Industrial now. The bomber is dead. Just some Biz jets. On they will sell a couple to the gov going forward but those sales are meaning less. They are selling in 10 and twenty job lots to leasing companies. Their chance to save Bombardier was when the government told Boeing to pound salt on the F-18E. (I would never have done this but this would have been the solution) The gov at that time should have bought a bunch of CS100's (use them for everything VIP, transport, MPA, etc) and saved the program instead they just gave it Airbus. And then Bombardier exploded anyways. So now the Gov is pissed off at Boeing, the RCAF got used F-18, The taxpayer lost money spent on the CS100. And they didn't save the company in the end. And now the RCAF are getting the F-35 in end. Good job!

So to recap Boeing is having trouble selling the P-8 to RCAF, The government is buying the F-35 anyways but years late, and Bombardier as world prime OEM is gone. So not one good outcome.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
847
Points
1,060
I've been saying, I will be CRA long before this happens (51 years old now). I've also watched the MH and Fighter projects swirl and swirl...

Keep in mind, Block 4 is not fleet-wide yet for the '140; there's been no return on investment on that project yet.s

saw this for the Polaris replacement seems a little long to IOC for an already chosen in use platform. Seems questionable that the Polaris have another 6/7 years in them what with all the issues they seem to continually have. Come on Justin pull the trigger you know you want a new Canada ONE

4. Implementation​

  • Request for Proposal: Winter 2022
  • Implementation Phase: 2023
  • Initial Operational Capability: 2028/2029
  • Final Operational Capability: 2030/2031

couldnt figure out how to get rid of bold (‘sort of’ mod fixed 😉)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top