CP-140 Aurora

[Loachman]

The CRJ range figure was before any extra fuel tanks are add.  MMA range is stated with the extra fuel tanks.

And with the extra weight of the extra fuel, what would have to be given up in order to compensate?

However about the cost factor? the P-8 looks to be to costly for a Canada and DND.

Designing one's own, even on an existing airframe, isn't as cheap and simple as one might think either.

Plus, what does one get for the cost? Would a lesser aircraft be capable of doing everything that we may want? I think not.

The you need to look into the fact that a combination of lower quality in range, weapons payload with increase quantity planes that DND can buy in lower purchased cost and operating costs? 

We establish project teams to analyse all aspects of forecast mission requirements and come up with viable options.

Increased quantity of aircraft is not necessarily a good thing. We have to crew them all and find sufficient techs to maintain and service them. We are extremely short of both, and will be for the foreseeable future.

Just look how hard it is to get the Chinnoks!

That's more to do with us. We have yet to even decide upon what we want on it yet. One less "n" and one more "o" by the way...

 

[aesop081]

Plus the CRJ is base on the business aircraft and they have been proven to hold the radars an EO turrets, etc.

Radar and EO......thats it ?

How about MAD, ESM, Data management system, communications suite, Acoustic data processing system, Sufficient quantity of sonobouys and search stores, sufficient load of Mk46 ASW torps ( or newer) , tactical display systems, crew survival equipment, ASuW weapons........The CP-140 and the P-8 MMA are large aircraft for a reason.

 

[geo]

The US let us skip the line for the CC-177 after all so you cannot say that the same arrangement cannot be done.

The two CC-177s we received were airframes that were in the production line for Australia, not the US.
The 1st two of our four aircraft order will be going to Australia.

 

[hauger]

I'll admit ignorance of the Maritime Patrol world, but man, I feel really bad for the poor small boat fishermen off the east coast somewhere that get visually identified by a P-8 zipping by at +400 kts, 200 feet (ish), with the two 27,000 hp turbines pushing air.  I'm sure that'll scare off some fish.

Here's a question for the low level stuff....one, jet turbines are horribly inefficient at low altitudes (sea level), which is why as I understand it the Aurora shuts down 2 of the four engines so they can run the remaining 2 at high speed necessary to generate the operating pressures in the gas generator.  How will turbo-fans react to hanging out at just above sea level?  Also, will the P-8 be able to fly slow enough to be useful for low-level visual id?

 

[Haletown]

and then again, Japan has a long, long history of designing and building excellent long rang maritime patrol aircraft.  They just have to change their export laws.

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2008/02/jmsdf-spanks-usn.html

I am NOT an expert in the area, but it looks like a good design.

What say the experts who do the job for a living ?

 

[Loachman]

From Page 4 of this thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/66394/post-621740/topicseen.html#msg621740

It didn't seem to generate much discussion.

 

[peaches]

mY GUESS HERE IS A COMPLETE CHANGE OF TACTICS FOR THE mARITIME PATROL FOLKS.  tHE p-8 BEING A

 

[Eye In The Sky]

mY GUESS HERE IS A COMPLETE CHANGE OF TACTICS FOR THE mARITIME PATROL FOLKS.  tHE p-8 BEING A

broken and unreadable, say again, over  ;D

 

[eurowing]

I'll admit ignorance of the Maritime Patrol world, but man, I feel really bad for the poor small boat fishermen off the east coast somewhere that get visually identified by a P-8 zipping by at +400 kts, 200 feet (ish), with the two 27,000 hp turbines pushing air.  I'm sure that'll scare off some fish.

Here's a question for the low level stuff....one, jet turbines are horribly inefficient at low altitudes (sea level), which is why as I understand it the Aurora shuts down 2 of the four engines so they can run the remaining 2 at high speed necessary to generate the operating pressures in the gas generator.  How will turbo-fans react to hanging out at just above sea level?  Also, will the P-8 be able to fly slow enough to be useful for low-level visual id?

Aurora engines run at 100% RPM in flight.  The Prop adjusts pitch to control thrust and the engine adjusts fuel to maintain 100%.  Cdn Aviator can chime in here, but I think the crew shuts down one engine in the interest of fuel economy and will relight it if they need to get "agressive".

 

[aesop081]

which is why as I understand it the Aurora shuts down 2 of the four engines so they can run the remaining 2 at high speed necessary to generate the operating pressures in the gas generator. 

We shut down 1 engine ( we can shut down 2 but rarely do so) to save fuel and extend our on-station time.

 

[hauger]

We shut down 1 engine ( we can shut down 2 but rarely do so) to save fuel and extend our on-station time.

Fair enough...one engine.  I would have thought that OEI through shutdown increases the risk of Vmca  due to failure of the other engine running on that side...leaving 2 working engines on one side pulling 2 engines Inop. on the other side.  Granted, it's probably safer than having 2 engines caged and then having a third pack it in while low level.  Can't imagine that being fun either.

So....back to the original question, can the P-8 operate efficiently and usefully at low level, or will visual id become the domain of UAV's directed from a P-8 operating on high?

 

[aesop081]

  Granted, it's probably safer than having 2 engines caged and then having a third pack it in while low level.  Can't imagine that being fun either.

Hence why we wont be down low on only 2 engines.

As far as the P-8, the US Navy seems to think that it can operate at low-level. As far as the tactics are for visual ID , i think thats a sunbject for another time and place. just remember that there are issues with UAVs operating due regard (IIRC) and that weather is a huge factor when trying to VID from up high......

 

[WPA]

Radar and EO......thats it ?

How about MAD, ESM, Data management system, communications suite, Acoustic data processing system, Sufficient quantity of sonobouys and search stores, sufficient load of Mk46 ASW torps ( or newer) , tactical display systems, crew survival equipment, ASuW weapons........The CP-140 and the P-8 MMA are large aircraft for a reason.

Once again i am not an expert!

The CRJ 900/ 1000 are larger then the CP-140 and they are small the P-8.
I just saying that Aircraft is proven and building 2 test planes will give the Gov and DND the option of an interm plane and maybe a possible the better option to meet the needs for Canada other then the Boeing and Airbus option.

I mention the radar and EO as an example conversions already done to lower the risk in the over all project of builsing test planes.
Some other conversion are side scanning radars, different type of pollution scanners, cameras and different types of luanchers for flares and sensor equipment.

P-8 is a large aircraft to do what the us wants and that does not mean what Canada wants or needs.

Lets just not limit our options.

Plus the CRJ 900/1000 does have advantage over the 737 in purchase cost and operating cost.   

 

[aesop081]

P-8 is a large aircraft to do what the us wants and that does not mean what Canada wants or needs.

   

Then by all means, tell me what it is Canada does want / need ?

Your MMA/ MPA comparaison comment indicates to me that you dont seem to know/understand what we do now, how can you know what we need ?

 

[George Wallace]

P-8 is a large aircraft to do what the us wants and that does not mean what Canada wants or needs.  

Wonder what you must have thought about the Argus?

 

[hauger]

umm....just throwing this out there...tell me what you think....

Blimps.

Advantages:
Lots of range....high loitter times...efficient...and really, really high on the intimidation scale (imagine an airship decending, blotting out the sky like so much death and destruction, on a suspected smuggler or Sub position).

Disadvantage:
High loitter times....probably undesirable transit times.....potential lack of "swagger cool" cred. to be used when visiting another wing's Mess.

 

[WPA]

Then by all means, tell me what it is Canada does want / need ?

Your MMA/ MPA comparaison comment indicates to me that you dont seem to know/understand what we do now, how can you know what we need ?

I never said i know what Canada needs or wants. But say the P-8 is the only option is wrong too.

 

[Loachman]

Once again i am not an expert!

And CDN Aviator is.

So are those involved in the/any Aurora replacement project.

 

[Loachman]

Disadvantage:
High loitter times....probably undesirable transit times.....potential lack of "swagger cool" cred. to be used when visiting another wing's Mess.

...grunts wanting to rappel/jump from it all of the time...

 

[benny88]

umm....just throwing this out there...tell me what you think....

Blimps.

Advantages:
Lots of range....high loitter times...efficient...and really, really high on the intimidation scale (imagine an airship decending, blotting out the sky like so much death and destruction, on a suspected smuggler or Sub position) And then having the smuggler, oh, I dunno, escape easily. ;D