CMMA - replacing the CP140 Aurora

[KevinB]

I'm not sure it would be that bad.

I’m sure it would be worse.

PAL has successfully built an MPA from a Dash 8, the P-6 is supposed to use similar systems as the P-4. If the article is right and they get a launch customer it won't be an orphan fleet. I do realize that's a big if.

It will be a North American and just as importantly a Coalition of the Willing Orphan..

Bombardier has a global support network, the 6500 is a proven airframe. There are many Global airframes converted for various electronic surveillance missions.

The range (unrefueled) will likely end up being better than the P-8 as the Global 6500 has a 6600nmi range vs the 4050nmi range of the P-8.

You are discounting the enormous box on the bottom that needs to still be added to the P-6
Then everything else that is fit externally and the additional weight and drag from both those additions.

Kind of a big issue when the ballistic coefficient becomes less than half as efficient…

The Cyclone is a puzzling bird, how does a company like Sikorsky with such a storied history of building helicopters, including MPA's screw up so badly?

Generally one wants to buy a package from an OEM in a configuration. Not add items to a preexisting airframe and ‘hope for the best’, and make changes to the airframe too. Then contract penalties are insignificant to the scope, so you make it financially responsible for the OEM to effectively default.
- I did see a S-92 looking bird yesterday in Marine 1 paint though.

I like the P-8 and it is likely a better fit but I also think PAL is on to something with this P-6 and I wish them luck.

 

[dimsum]

I'm not sure it would be that bad.

PAL has successfully built an MPA from a Dash 8, the P-6 is supposed to use similar systems as the P-4. If the article is right and they get a launch customer it won't be an orphan fleet. I do realize that's a big if.

Yes but it will not be the same level of inter-operability as thr P-8 and 4 of the FVEY that we do Ops with most frequently, nor the 737 logistics infrastructure that is in pretty much every airport.

Bombardier has a global support network, the 6500 is a proven airframe. There are many Global airframes converted for various electronic surveillance missions.

The range (unrefueled) will likely end up being better than the P-8 as the Global 6500 has a 6600nmi range vs the 4050nmi range of the P-8.

I would be very wary of the “shiny brochure” numbers, esp for the passenger version. Does that include any pax/cargo? What flight profile (flying at lower altitudes burn more gas), and it definitely doesn’t take into account the external stores or the added weight of the kit like the radar or sonobuoys put in there.

The Cyclone is a puzzling bird, how does a company like Sikorsky with such a storied history of building helicopters, including MPA's screw up so badly?

I like the P-8 and it is likely a better fit but I also think PAL is on to something with this P-6 and I wish them luck.

PAL may be on to something for a nation with a smaller coastline. The distances that a Canadian MPRA needs to cover is enormous and a (large) business jet airframe isn't going to really cut it.

A nation like Portugal or Spain may be super happy with something like the P-6. But is it the best fit for Canada?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I would be very wary of the “shiny brochure” numbers, esp for the passenger version. Does that include any pax/cargo? What flight profile (flying at lower altitudes burn more gas), and it definitely doesn’t take into account the external stores or the added weight of the kit like the radar or sonobuoys put in there.

Not only flying low, but transitioning between altitudes like an MPA does regularly. Flying low burns fuel, climbing burns fuel.

Put a 6500 with the proposed all-up weight into a normal fly regime we are used to in a 140 and lets see those range numbers again, including all the bits and bobs that will induce drag, and allow ice to build up adding weight and more drag.

I'd also like to see some computer models on how the 6500 airframe handles external wing stores in low level flight regimes doing things like MAD trapping and all the stuff that comes with low level flight. Things are a bit different at 300', doing 200kts over sea state 6 doing 60 degree angle of bank and 2Gs. I'm not aware of 6500s working that profile and seeing the effects but I could be wrong.

Conversely, those numbers and effects are known on the P-8.

$7billion USD was put into the R&D for the P-8. Why take a fictional 6500 aircraft that exits only in a form that can sit on the front seat of my Mazda 3?

 

[GR66]

The range (unrefueled) will likely end up being better than the P-8 as the Global 6500 has a 6600nmi range vs the 4050nmi range of the P-8.

The P-8 can do air-to-air refueling. I haven't found any info indicating that the Global 6500 has that capability. That's a pretty major advantage of the P-8.

 

[YZT580]

Roger, so you’re in for?

• 18-8, 16-295 (and by association 16-390)

that will work beautifully. I like the notion of a pressurized buffalo or a re-purposed DH7 but realistically it will only produce an orphan fleet.

 

[FSTO]

I would be very wary of the “shiny brochure” numbers, esp for the passenger version. Does that include any pax/cargo? What flight profile (flying at lower altitudes burn more gas), and it definitely doesn’t take into account the external stores or the added weight of the kit like the radar or sonobuoys put in there.

Gotta love the "Tethered Goat" that all those super cool super slo motion on target missile hits shown in the promo videos!

 

[Good2Golf]

Gutsy move, Mav, adding P-295s!

So…we’ve got:
• 10-8, 8-6
• 15-8, 6-6
• 18-8, 2-6(-)
• 18-8, 16-295 (and by association 16-27)
• 18-8, 16-295 (and by association 16-390)

Vegas updates the book:

 

[dapaterson]

Look, all you need is a Cessna with a GoPro camera, and someone to chuck grenades out the window.

 

[KevinB]

Vegas updates the book:

20 P-8.

 

[Spencer100]

I'm going with the 10 Globals but most importantly they will have mission swap out modules. The first module will be the VVIP module. And it will not be removed. The others will be cancelled after cost overruns.

 

[dimsum]

I'm going with the 10 Globals but most importantly they will have mission swap out modules. The first module will be the VVIP module. And it will not be removed. The others will be cancelled after cost overruns.

If the PM rides along on a night time ASW mission, we will have new aircraft tomorrow.

 

[Good2Golf]

So…we’ve got:
• 10-8, 8-6
• 15-8, 6-6
• 18-8, 2-6(-)
• 18-8, 16-295 (and by association 16-27)
• 18-8, 16-295 (and by association 16-390)
• 10-6(multi-config)
• 20-8

Vegas on a roll!

 

[FSTO]

22 - 10 All on Red Mofos!!!

So when uncle Joe comes to town is it the PM or MND who makes the P8 announcement?

 

[MTShaw]

Sorry, was paying close enough attention and should have known better.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I think you are all overlooking another Canadian possibility: Sensors/weapons systems mounted on a Canadian built Airbus 220.

 

[GR66]

Since my offhand suggestion that the CC-295s could be re-purposed as MPAs obviously won't happen, would a mixed P-8/P-6 fleet actually be an option?

With the size of our maritime domain we realistically need more than 18 MPAs and in typical Canadian manner we'll likely replace 18 x CP-140s with <significantly less than 18> x P-8s.

We could augment a reduced P-8 fleet with a fleet of P-6's primarily used in a MSA role (but since they are fitted with hardpoints and a weapons bay they could be armed in case of an actual conflict). As EITS suggested regarding the CC-295s, the P-6 could have an OTU role in addition to the MSA role with crews doing conversion training for the P-8s.

Bonus that one or two Global 6500s could be procured for the VIP transport role so that for GOC travel that doesn't require a full-sized entourage they could be used instead of having to use one of the MRTTs. If we're really ambitious we could even get a couple of Global Eyes as well to provide better control over our air domain.

So maybe something like this:

• 12 x P-8
• 8 x P-6 (2 x OTU and 6 x MSA - maintaining our current overall patrol fleet of 18 aircraft)
• 2 x Global Eye
• 2 x Global 6500 VIP Transport

 

[armrdsoul77]

I think you are all overlooking another Canadian possibility: Sensors/weapons systems mounted on a Canadian built Airbus 220.

I love it. A big f u to Boeing.

Geared turbofans with a gear for high and fast and a different gear for low and slow(4 on the floor shifter).

Big windows for mk1 eyeball sensors.

 

[dapaterson]

Paper airplanes are very expensive. As a launch customer you are paying all the engineering costs. The cost of a P6 to Canada would be billions of dollars before getting a single aircraft. Then we would not have a supply chain; all modernization costs would have us paying 100% of the NRE costs... It's 100% a terrible, terrible, horrible, expensive, did I say terrible, idea.

Sort of like buying the Cyclone, but without the backstop of a credible defence contractor.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

From the CDR article if anyone hasn’t read it:

 

[GR66]

Paper airplanes are very expensive. As a launch customer you are paying all the engineering costs. The cost of a P6 to Canada would be billions of dollars before getting a single aircraft. Then we would not have a supply chain; all modernization costs would have us paying 100% of the NRE costs... It's 100% a terrible, terrible, horrible, expensive, did I say terrible, idea.

Sort of like buying the Cyclone, but without the backstop of a credible defence contractor.

You guys know this whole conversation is hypothetical, right? The proposal to sole-source purchase 8-12 P-8s has already been discussed in the media (see Ottawa Citizen articles by certain authors as a reference) and there has been talk of the announcement going around for weeks.

We're going to get 8-12 x P-8s (God I pray it's 12) to replace 18 x CP-140s. Maybe a miracle will happen and this government will find the brains/balls to increase the order to at least 18 maintain our current fleet size, but I seriously doubt it.

MAYBE the US cares enough about the fleet size delta to pressure us to take more, but again I doubt it. There are lots of other things that they are going to want us to improve in our military and they'll probably be satisfied that we announced on the P-8 and will save that political pressure for faster/more NORAD upgrades, etc.

The only other hope is that the current government is gone before Boeing shuts down the P-8 production line and the next government ups our order. Increasing an existing order would likely be politically easier than purchasing a completely new platform.

All that basically to say that we're getting P-8s. The number will be less than the number of CP-140s we have which sucks. But I honestly can't see any Canadian government buying an additional fleet of MPAs on top of the P-8s...P-6s, P-4s, Swordfish, CC-295s, Chinese-sourced balloons, or anything. Mixed fleet discussions are as real as our paper napkin discussions of deployable Army Reserve Divisions.