CP-140 Aurora
- Thread starter cplcaldwell
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 460
I read the article, and he lost me when he stated this "Perhaps one way to generate a way to keep ASW skills alive while Canada works towards 21st century systems might be for Canada to join with the UK and Norway to procure a set of Tritons in common and work common data sharing arrangements."
Tritons will do absolutely nothing to maintain ASW skills. There's much more to ASW than analyzing sonobuoy information and in reality that's all the Triton will be good for (in the sense of maintaining a skillset).
IMHO we currently have one of the best ASW platforms out there. The results of a recent (friendly) competition between various nations speaks for itself (we came first/USN with their P8 finished last).
To think that we will be out of the ASW game because we aren't flying the P8, or our skills will fade because we are flying the P3 is absurd. There are plenty of reasons why our ASW skills could slip, the airframe isn't one of them. As for other nations being concerned that our airborne ASW capability, I don't know who the fuck that guy is talking to, but there's been nothing but positive feedback from our allies regarding our Block III capabilities. Don't get me wrong a replacement is needed, but we are still very relevant in the ASW game.
The Swordfish sounds interesting and it is based on a Bombardier airframe. 200 sonobuoy capability. Although there doesn't seem to be much space for extra luggage!
http://saab.com/globalassets/publications-pdfs/support-and-services/mpa/swordfish_mpa_datasheet_may-2017_web.pdf
Tritons will do absolutely nothing to maintain ASW skills. There's much more to ASW than analyzing sonobuoy information and in reality that's all the Triton will be good for (in the sense of maintaining a skillset).
IMHO we currently have one of the best ASW platforms out there. The results of a recent (friendly) competition between various nations speaks for itself (we came first/USN with their P8 finished last).
To think that we will be out of the ASW game because we aren't flying the P8, or our skills will fade because we are flying the P3 is absurd. There are plenty of reasons why our ASW skills could slip, the airframe isn't one of them. As for other nations being concerned that our airborne ASW capability, I don't know who the fuck that guy is talking to, but there's been nothing but positive feedback from our allies regarding our Block III capabilities. Don't get me wrong a replacement is needed, but we are still very relevant in the ASW game.
The Swordfish sounds interesting and it is based on a Bombardier airframe. 200 sonobuoy capability. Although there doesn't seem to be much space for extra luggage!
http://saab.com/globalassets/publications-pdfs/support-and-services/mpa/swordfish_mpa_datasheet_may-2017_web.pdf
- Reaction score
- 13,128
- Points
- 1,010
The lack of a bomb bay for torpedos is probably a show stopper.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 460
No bomb bay, but it does have hard points on the wings.
I'm pro-P8, but given the "Bombardier" flavour of the Swordfish, I could easily see our government going with it. Then again I could see our Government going with a hot air ballon and a couple of nerf guns too.
I'm pro-P8, but given the "Bombardier" flavour of the Swordfish, I could easily see our government going with it. Then again I could see our Government going with a hot air ballon and a couple of nerf guns too.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,267
- Points
- 1,160
Dolphin_Hunter said:
There is always the Japanese flavour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_P-1
I wonder what trade credits we could get?
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 180
Colin P said:
There's another(European)option,the A-319MPA(Airbus)
The A-319 is the smallest of the A-320 family and has a MAD boom and can be equiped with external fuell tanks,for longer flying time.(on station,etc)
Another possibillty would be to(if you want bigger)go for the A-321
so there are options,made in the US
-8A Poseidon,made in Canada/Sweden:The Swordfish,Made in Japan:the P-1 or made in the EU:the A319 MPA.https://www.slideshare.net/aeroplans/a319-mpa-pocketguide
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Meanwhile for overland ISR:
RAF Sentinel (Bombardier Global Express airframe):
https://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/sentinelr1.cfm
Mark
Ottawa
RAF Sentinel (Bombardier Global Express airframe):
https://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/sentinelr1.cfm
Mark
Ottawa
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,267
- Points
- 1,160
Who owns the rights to the P3 airframe? if we are looking Canadian, maybe get Viking to build new airframes?
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,267
- Points
- 1,160
LOL there you go with economic sense stuff again, you make a terrible politician 8) The biggest problem with that idea is that it's a Western Canadian company, not part of the "Greater Canada bit". The nice thing about a new P3 Airframe is the ASW suite could be almost drop in and tweak some things. There are roughly 15 countries still flying them (wiki). Even if Viking can't sell the whole airframe, perhaps wings and other bits?
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,267
- Points
- 1,160
Loachman said:
If we wanted to go down that road, we could tie it to a potential F-35 purchase, where Viking takes on the building of airframes and parts with some license kickbacks to Lockmart.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Dolphin_Hunter said:
Not until 15 years of *studies* on hot air, balloons, nerf and nerf substitutes.
No guns though. Guns are bad, m'kay? ;D
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
jmt18325 said:
About? Which part?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 460
Dimsum said:
IMHO our skills have slipped (we are bleeding experience) and we are at a tipping point. Prior to Block III we really had to work the sensors, now we are getting by because we have a powerful sensor suite to back us up.
The crew that pulled this off was experienced, so in this case I say it was crew training/currency. However, the recent results from the SIMEX have exposed several areas in which we are lacking. The aircraft performs well (back end), it's the crew training/currency that needs to be improved. This is from an ASW perspective, which is the most challenging task we face on the CP-140.
I don't know if that makes sense or not.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,454
- Points
- 1,010
Makes perfect sense DH.
It's the same for the fleet. ASW is just one of those complex area of warfare that requires a lot of training/currency, and that we never seem to be able to do enough of. Even the fleet has let it slip of late, due to the concentration on surface warfare that recent deployments in the Gulf and the Med have required.
It's not a new phenomena. To quote from the WWII era movie The Cruel Sea:
"So you found a submarine, you say. Oh! Have you? It could be a school of fish, or the Wardroom leftovers the steward just chucked over board. How can you tell the difference? Practice! Lots and lots of lovely practice."
It's the same for the fleet. ASW is just one of those complex area of warfare that requires a lot of training/currency, and that we never seem to be able to do enough of. Even the fleet has let it slip of late, due to the concentration on surface warfare that recent deployments in the Gulf and the Med have required.
It's not a new phenomena. To quote from the WWII era movie The Cruel Sea:
"So you found a submarine, you say. Oh! Have you? It could be a school of fish, or the Wardroom leftovers the steward just chucked over board. How can you tell the difference? Practice! Lots and lots of lovely practice."
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Dolphin_Hunter said:
The *100%-manned crews* issue is a short/medium term problem, which the solution to is (on paper) easy; train more people.
Having airframes for them to use on training and operational missions, in 2028...that part is the one that worries me.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Article Link
Surveillance plane crews strained after three years flying over Iraq, Syria
OTTAWA — The Canadian military is hoping the recent withdrawal of one of its Aurora surveillance planes from the fight against the Islamic State will help ease what had become a serious strain on the fleet's aircrews.
Two Auroras were deployed to the Middle East as part of Canada's response to ISIL in November 2014, along with dozens of special forces troops, six fighter jets and a refuelling plane. Using high-powered cameras and sensors, the Auroras gathered data about possible ISIL targets for attacks and air strikes in Iraq and then, after the mission was expanded, inside Syria.
The planes have flown a total of 821 reconnaissance missions since first arriving at their base in Kuwait, with both Canadian and coalition commanders praising their role in the fight against ISIL. But one of the Auroras was quietly withdrawn from the region in May, without explanation.
In an interview with The Canadian Press, Col. Iain Huddleston, the air force's director of fleet readiness, said the U.S.-led coalition no longer needed the plane because of the recent liberation of Mosul. Yet he also said there had been concerns within military circles about the impact that three years of non-stop flying over Iraq and Syria was having on Aurora aircrews.
"No word of a lie that it's been a strain on our people," Huddleston said by telephone from his office in Winnipeg, "and we're happy to have some of our contribution pulled back."
While the Royal Canadian Air Force has 14 Auroras, Huddleston said that between long-term and short-term upgrades and maintenance, only four or five are available to fly on any given day. That includes the previous two — now one — in the Middle East.
Huddleston said many of the Aurora crews have deployed multiple times into the region, where they spend months separated from family and are largely confined to a corner of a U.S. military base in Kuwait.
"We've had people go over and over again," he said. "Has it created retention problems? I don't think we're at that point yet, but it's certainly been a strain."
At the same time, military officials were concerned that the crews weren't doing enough of what the Auroras are actually designed to do: patrolling Canada's coasts for enemy ships and subs. "We're not as good as we used to be at our other roles," Huddleston said, "and specifically we're concerned about regaining both proficiency and experience in our other roles."
The decision to pull one of the Auroras out of the Middle East should help address both problems, he added, while ensuring Canada continues to help in the fight against ISIL.
Huddleston is the second military officer in as many months to talk about the toll that the mission, which was recently extended to 2019, has taken on the Canadian Armed Forces. Brig.-Gen. Peter Dawe, the deputy commander of special forces, told The Canadian Press last month that his troops were operating "on borrowed time" after three years on the ground in Iraq.
Dawe said that was why the government's plan to add hundreds of new special forces soldiers in the coming years, as promised in the new defence policy proposal, was not only welcome but necessary.
Huddleston said a similar expansion has been promised for the Aurora aircrews.
The Auroras were first flown by the military in the early 1980s and designed to patrol Canada's coastal regions for potential threats. They have since been upgraded several times and were first used to spot targets on land during the war in Libya in 2011, when NATO was supporting rebel forces in their fight against Moammar Gadhafi.
The Harper Conservatives planned to replace them by 2020, but they are now being upgraded to fly until 2030, when a new surveillance aircraft is expected to be purchased.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Col Huddleston is a former 14 Wing Commander , for those who've never heard of him. Nice of him to say it like it is publicly.
As it stands now, the *most times deployed to IMPACT* award is at 4 ROTOs...with some people in the XXX missions flown over the JOA.
Surveillance plane crews strained after three years flying over Iraq, Syria
OTTAWA — The Canadian military is hoping the recent withdrawal of one of its Aurora surveillance planes from the fight against the Islamic State will help ease what had become a serious strain on the fleet's aircrews.
Two Auroras were deployed to the Middle East as part of Canada's response to ISIL in November 2014, along with dozens of special forces troops, six fighter jets and a refuelling plane. Using high-powered cameras and sensors, the Auroras gathered data about possible ISIL targets for attacks and air strikes in Iraq and then, after the mission was expanded, inside Syria.
The planes have flown a total of 821 reconnaissance missions since first arriving at their base in Kuwait, with both Canadian and coalition commanders praising their role in the fight against ISIL. But one of the Auroras was quietly withdrawn from the region in May, without explanation.
In an interview with The Canadian Press, Col. Iain Huddleston, the air force's director of fleet readiness, said the U.S.-led coalition no longer needed the plane because of the recent liberation of Mosul. Yet he also said there had been concerns within military circles about the impact that three years of non-stop flying over Iraq and Syria was having on Aurora aircrews.
"No word of a lie that it's been a strain on our people," Huddleston said by telephone from his office in Winnipeg, "and we're happy to have some of our contribution pulled back."
While the Royal Canadian Air Force has 14 Auroras, Huddleston said that between long-term and short-term upgrades and maintenance, only four or five are available to fly on any given day. That includes the previous two — now one — in the Middle East.
Huddleston said many of the Aurora crews have deployed multiple times into the region, where they spend months separated from family and are largely confined to a corner of a U.S. military base in Kuwait.
"We've had people go over and over again," he said. "Has it created retention problems? I don't think we're at that point yet, but it's certainly been a strain."
At the same time, military officials were concerned that the crews weren't doing enough of what the Auroras are actually designed to do: patrolling Canada's coasts for enemy ships and subs. "We're not as good as we used to be at our other roles," Huddleston said, "and specifically we're concerned about regaining both proficiency and experience in our other roles."
The decision to pull one of the Auroras out of the Middle East should help address both problems, he added, while ensuring Canada continues to help in the fight against ISIL.
Huddleston is the second military officer in as many months to talk about the toll that the mission, which was recently extended to 2019, has taken on the Canadian Armed Forces. Brig.-Gen. Peter Dawe, the deputy commander of special forces, told The Canadian Press last month that his troops were operating "on borrowed time" after three years on the ground in Iraq.
Dawe said that was why the government's plan to add hundreds of new special forces soldiers in the coming years, as promised in the new defence policy proposal, was not only welcome but necessary.
Huddleston said a similar expansion has been promised for the Aurora aircrews.
The Auroras were first flown by the military in the early 1980s and designed to patrol Canada's coastal regions for potential threats. They have since been upgraded several times and were first used to spot targets on land during the war in Libya in 2011, when NATO was supporting rebel forces in their fight against Moammar Gadhafi.
The Harper Conservatives planned to replace them by 2020, but they are now being upgraded to fly until 2030, when a new surveillance aircraft is expected to be purchased.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Col Huddleston is a former 14 Wing Commander , for those who've never heard of him. Nice of him to say it like it is publicly.
As it stands now, the *most times deployed to IMPACT* award is at 4 ROTOs...with some people in the XXX missions flown over the JOA.
Similar threads
