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

CP-140 Aurora

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,213
Points
1,090
Question for those of you in the aircraft business... would it be cheaper to replace the 140 with a new-production of something similar?  Or go the P8 route?

I'm asking more in terms of routine costs, as that's where the bulk of the money goes. 


I would imagine a turboprop would be cheaper? 
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,133
Points
1,090
Airframes are (comparatively) easy; sensor and weapon integration is difficult.  Building our own creates schedule, technical and cost risk; buying off someone else's line mitigates those.

I'm not aware of many other in-production naval focused ISR platforms beyond the P8; and few nations have the coastline Canada has, with the associated implications for required range.  And with Bombardier exiting the commercial aircraft business, I expect there will be less pressure to play "What ISR suite can we put on a C-Series?"
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,985
Points
1,060
BobSlob said:
Oh god why? :)

Well, for starters...I heard there is a George Foreman grill included!!!  And there is a 360 radar, something something yadda yadda.

ONSTA burgers!  steak!  grilled...other stuff!! 



And, I'd rather a P1 over a 295 or 235 or something equally as crappy.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
4,073
Points
1,260
CBH99 said:
I would imagine a turboprop would be cheaper?

A turboprop may be cheaper, but props and jets work best for different altitudes and distances.

Basically, props are good for low level, jets are good for high level. 
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,213
Points
1,090
Dimsum said:
A turboprop may be cheaper, but props and jets work best for different altitudes and distances.

Basically, props are good for low level, jets are good for high level.


Being an MPA, such as the Aurora, what is ideal?? 

I imagine low level would be good for hunting subs - something, in my opinion, I think will be a renewed focus in the near future.  (If it isn't already?)

High level, I'm guessing you can monitor a much larger area.


I guess I'm curious about the pros/cons of an aircraft like a CP-140 vs. a P8 for our usual use.
 

DonaldMcL

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
CBH99 said:
Being an MPA, such as the Aurora, what is ideal?? 

I imagine low level would be good for hunting subs - something, in my opinion, I think will be a renewed focus in the near future.  (If it isn't already?)

High level, I'm guessing you can monitor a much larger area.


I guess I'm curious about the pros/cons of an aircraft like a CP-140 vs. a P8 for our usual use.

ASW has changed drastically over the years (obviously). There's, at least IMHO, very little reason to bomb around low level anymore. P8s still can do it, but if you can do everything at 3-5000ft vice 3-500ft, why wouldn't you?

For me it's a crew comfort type of thing, long flights are even longer when you're airsick.
 

Baz

Sr. Member
Donor
Reaction score
0
Points
160
CBH99 said:
Being an MPA, such as the Aurora, what is ideal?? 

I imagine low level would be good for hunting subs - something, in my opinion, I think will be a renewed focus in the near future.  (If it isn't already?)

High level, I'm guessing you can monitor a much larger area.

The P-8 program is *attempting* to get the both of best using expendable stores.

The weapon (torpedo) is going to be delivered by the High Altitude ASW Weapon Carrier (HAAWC), basically a Mk-50 or Mk-54 with a bomb glide kit.

There are programs for EO, IR, and MAD disposable sonobuoy launch container (SLC) UAVs.  They necessarily mean using smaller, lighter (and cheaper) sensors, but the trade off is you can get a lot closer to the threat if it's disposable.
 

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
460
Right now the only aircraft that meets our needs is the P8.  With a little effort, this information can be found on the DWAN, however the P8 is too pricey so here we are putting lipstick on a pig.  I’m sure the P1 could be added to the list, however it was not on the document I was looking at (to be fair it was a few years ago).  Nearly all other aircraft mentioned in this thread was.  It was also based on a requirement of 10 airframes (I believe), but if we look at the roles MAISR and RPAS will play in the future, then Canada should be able to get away with fewer MPA (CMMA) airframes. 

The ASW game definitely doesn’t need to be flown at low level.  With the use of the Multi-Static Active Coherent system (MACS) you can effectively cover a vast area at a much higher level. This is something the folks on the P8 do very well (MACS = something we can’t do).  Just ask anyone who worked with the USN on the most recent (2019) excursions.

As soon as Norway and the UK get their P8 aircraft up and running I feel Aurora crews will be left in the dust. We have much more in common with those nations than we do with the ones we signed on to develop a MPA with (Germany, Poland, Turkey, France, Spain, Italy and Greece). Basically the "C+" team of ASW warfare.

Once again everyone walks down a certain path and we think we can do it better by taking a different road. 


 

DonaldMcL

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
The flyaway cost of the P8 is actually now cheaper than the P1, and we can leverage the American training system much like the Aussies and Brits are doing for the short term. Support no matter where we go in the world as well.

Not to start a fire, but the recent $2.1 Billion Trudeau asked for FN support over the blockades could have replaced the MPA fleet. We will continue to fly these aircraft until they literally begin to fall out of the sky. It's no longer and if, but a when.

Latest RUMINT has the CP140 flying until 2040, people will die over this decision.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
4,073
Points
1,260
BobSlob said:
Latest RUMINT has the CP140 flying until 2040, people will die over this decision.

It may sound dramatic, but I agree.  It'll be a 60-year-old airframe that we ride like a rented mule. 
 

DonaldMcL

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Dimsum said:
It may sound dramatic, but I agree.  It'll be a 60-year-old airframe that we ride like a rented mule.

I mean, we've only just been lucky it hasn't happened over the last year and bit.
 

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
460
BobSlob said:
I mean, we've only just been lucky it hasn't happened over the last year and bit.

Yes.  Eventually the holes in the cheese will line up.  My last Aurora flight was interesting...
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,985
Points
1,060
Dolphin_Hunter said:
Right now the only aircraft that meets our needs is the P8.  With a little effort, this information can be found on the DWAN, however the P8 is too pricey so here we are putting lipstick on a pig.  I’m sure the P1 could be added to the list, however it was not on the document I was looking at (to be fair it was a few years ago).  Nearly all other aircraft mentioned in this thread was.  It was also based on a requirement of 10 airframes (I believe), but if we look at the roles MAISR and RPAS will play in the future, then Canada should be able to get away with fewer MPA (CMMA) airframes. 

10.  10 is not enough; we don't have enough now to meet all the FG/FE/FD demands.  LRP isn't doing any of the flying MAISR will do (we did some in Iraq...), but we don't do it as a matter of routine - IMPACT and OUP were "onsies". .  I don't know the CONOP for RPAs (does anyone?) but...unless we're getting something like RQ-4s...will they really be able to do what a manned MMA/LRPA can?  I say, no.  Heck they can't manage the Wx alone, let alone search/kill stores.

10 is not enough.  It might be what we get, because people don't know how to apply reality to "theory".  10 for FG/FE/FD....simply not enough.

I know the RAF is going to have 9 tails ( I think that was the final number...) but they do things a little different/have different realities that put different demands on their fleet.

 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,338
Points
1,360
GR66 said:
Found this older (2015) article comparing the P-8 and P-1.

https://battle-machines.org/2015/12/06/boeing-p-8a-vs-kawasaki-p-1-the-comparison-of-modern-mpas/

No idea on the reliability of the author or the website, but found it quite interesting.

Definitely interesting. Quad-panel AESA with a baseline the length of the fuselage will make for some very capable ISAR and other MTI modes.  Definitely worth keeping an eye on an aircraft that a nation on the doorstep of China purpose built to hunt and kill subs...

Regards
G2G
 
Top