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

Seeking an excuse to spend Defence $$ on a Bombardier plane

Ditch said:
Maybe it's time we get out of the sub-hunting business?

Yes, let's follow our friends in the UK.  I mean, that was a smart decision on their part to scrap the Nimrod, and they haven't looked back have they? 

The SGOD is being used operationally quite extensively this past decade since it came into service, but due to the nature of the missions it does and continues to do, outside of things like OP IMPACT, not many members of the CAF, let alone the average Canadians, really understands why Canada needs to maintain this capacity.  However, the Government does, which is why is spent tax dollars upgrading the systems and airframe with plans to fly it until about 2030.

There, now that makes some sense.

No war-torps dropped - plenty of targets lased (or whatever).

By that reasoning, every cop in the world that hasn't fired their service weapon by now should turn them in;  they'll never have to use them after all.  ::)

Assuming that because no 'war shot has been fired' means the CP-140 has never done operational ASW demonstrates that most CAF mbrs don't understand ASW or LRP; RCAF pilots from other fleets included.

The CP-140 has never lased a single thing.  Ever.  BZ on your knowledge of the plane and community you are talking about though. 

Retire the four-engine nightmare - get some sleek (fast) Global Express-type - bingo bango - excellent Surveillance machine for all threat aspects.

Nightmare.  How so?  How many hours do you have logged on Aurora's? 

How is the GE the solution for all threat aspects?  Better yet, what ARE all the threat aspects?  Explain.

 
IMHO, if we're not going to play with the big-boys and be serious about LRP (aka P-8 subkiller platform) - don't bother.  Do a threat estimate - figure out the chances of ever having to kill a sub - focus on the surface threat (from far far away).

Maybe the threat estimate was already done.

ASW is a skill that takes time to develop and maintain.  The RAF was forced to throw away the Nimrod, and then what happened?  In a word; 'clusterfuck'.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2867929/Navy-ask-French-help-hunt-Russian-submarine-thanks-defence-cuts.html

Maritime patrol aircraft (MPAs) from France, Canada and the US conducted patrols, in conjunction with British surface warships in the search, which began around November 26 and continued into the first week of December, operating out of RAF Lossiemouth.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed that it had received assistance from NATO allies but would not say whether they had been searching for a submarine.

But a UK defence ministry spokesman told Aviation Week that Britain had ‘requested assistance from allied forces for basing of maritime patrol aircraft at RAF Lossiemouth for a limited period,’ adding: ‘The aircraft are conducting Maritime Patrol activity with the Royal Navy; we do not discuss the detail of maritime operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The last line is the reason why most people, even RCAF aircrew such as yourself, don't understand the LRP world, what it does, how it does it and why it is needed.  I don't pretend to understand SAR and AWACS, just because I am versed in ASW/LRP stuff, right?  Because that would be me talking outside my lane.

And now, what is the RAF doing after having to call on countries, such as Canada, to provide MPA's when they needed them?  They are getting a real MPA again.  Maybe we should learn from their mistake.  :2c:

"We", as in the LRP community 'we', play with the big boys just fine.  How much operational and/or exercise ASW have you done?  Ever searched for, tracked a diesel or nuc boat before?

In comparison to your 'assessment'...

As a “command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance” (C4ISR) platform, the Aurora performs domestic and international operations across a wide variety of disciplines.

This includes domestic surveillance of the Canadian Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic Oceans, as well as anti-surface warfare, maritime and overland intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), strike coordination, and search and rescue (SAR) missions.

It also provides vital support to other government agencies in combating illegal immigration, fishing, polluting, or drug trafficking, as well as assisting with disaster relief. The CP-140 has also retained and modernized its ASW capability, and is able to detect and destroy the latest generation of stealth submarines.

These capabilities allow the CP-140 to detect, deter and control illegal or hostile activity anywhere in Canada’s maritime approaches or remote regions. With its air-droppable survival pods, the CP-140 can also perform SAR duties.

Outside of routine patrols or classified missions, the CP-140 fleet has often been involved in high profile operations. From 1992 to 1995, Aurora aircraft made a significant contribution to Operation Sharp Guard, which was the NATO-led blockade of the former Yugoslavia. During the Red River flood of 1997, Auroras flew SAR missions over flood-ravaged southern Manitoba (Operation Assistance).

CP-140s were also employed in Operation Apollo in the Persian Gulf from late 2001 to mid-2003, where they flew 500 air patrol sorties as part of Canada’s contribution to the international campaign against terrorism. During the Olympic and Paralympic Games in Vancouver, and the G8/G10 Summits in Toronto, the Auroras provided ISR support for the RCMP-led Integrated Security Unit. In 2011, during Operation Mobile, Auroras conducted maritime ISR missions, as well as overland strike coordination and armed reconnaissance-coordinator (SCAR-C) sorties that provided critical information to coalition forces. In all, Aurora crews conducted 181 sorties over land and water during that operation.

As of 2014, the Aurora fleet is in the midst of an extensive upgrade that will extend its life expectancy to the 2030 timeframe. This upgrade includes structural upgrades and replacement of the outer wings and horizontal stabilizers through the Aurora structural life extension project (ASLEP). Parallel with this, the Aurora incremental modernization project (AIMP) Block III is upgrading mission systems and sensors that are giving the modernized Aurora a world-class capability.

These projects represent a significant achievement for Canada as the majority of the work is being completed in Canada by Canadian companies.


On top of that, I'll add 400+ missions as part of the ATF-I at OP IMPACT.  Concurrent to those 400 operational missions, the LRP community continues to do all of our "routine and classified missions" as well as the other stuff, some of what was mentioned above.

The Canadians tax payers are getting their bang for their buck out of LRP Sqn's.  The Aurora isn't shiny new like the P-8, but I don't have much doubt about it's ability to locate, track, and drop fish on a hostile submerged target.  That is mostly because I've been on it when it has been able to locate, track and 'have the abilty' to drop fish on a submerged target.  I've been onboard for operational ISR & ASW.  Exercise ISR & ASW. 

Opinions, informed opinions.  There's a difference.

Report: Russian sub activity returns to Cold War levels

With no sub-chasing aircraft of its own, UK calls on allies to help find Russian submarine  Do we want this story to say "...Canada calls on Allies to help find XYZ submarine..." next time?

Sorry for the rant;  ignorance of facts and irresponsible opinions others may see as credible piss me off sometimes.


 
Dolphin_Hunter said:
I am shocked that the C-Series MPA hasn't been mentioned.  Not that I think it's a great idea, but it isn't any worse than starting a ship building industry from scratch. 

SeaKingTacco said:
I was waiting for someone to suggest that we cut a bomb bay into a C series and begin mounting sensors.

I mean- how hard could that be? (That is rhetorical- nothing is impossible, if you bring a big enough cheque book).

I am actually waiting to see if the C300 gets mentioned as a possible replace for our Polaris.

Nothing says "Canada" like the PM flying around in one of those. Paint it grey. Cut cargo doors in the side and plumb them for the tanker option- what is not to love?

Dolphin_Hunter said:
We could keep the existing sensor suite from the CP-140.

AFAIK, the CMA (Canadian Mutli-mission Aircraft) program/proposal was put on hold; this is what lead to the total number of '140s going to Blk3 from 10 to 14.  The '140 will supposedly go out of service around 2030.

That, to me, means the RCAF needs to start the project to replace them by 2020 [at the latest], which 'just around the corner' in reality.

I could see the C-series being a serious consideration, and there will be more data on the P-8 type LRPA by then (if they share it at all).  How the low level flying is on the airframe, engines, are they getting the expected performance, how is ON STA times affected by low level stuff, all that.  Are they flying the P-8 low level?  Yup, the lowest I know of was 200' last fall when they had to do VIS ID on some stuff in the soup.

I personally like 4 engine aircraft for MPA/LRPAs.  Call me a sissy, but if you are 1000+ miles feet wet with 2 engines and you lose one...uh oh.  I also think, currently, turbo prop is better than turbo fan for Canada;  I don't see use investing into all the fanch schamcy GPS torp stuff and you need that if you are going to do ASW a la the high alt stuff.

If they could militarize the C-Series so we could carry the sensor, search and kill stores, fly safely down at the deck over SS5, etc and still have a respectable ON STA time, then it isn't a bad idea to consider the airframe.

I am still a fan of the SC-130J, for the reasons I listed.  Common parts, training, all of that is a HUGE bonus that should be win/win/win for the taxpayer, RCAF and Sqns.  The one thing going against the SC-130J, IMO, is that the Jerc won't be part of the FWSAR world.  IIRC they weren't interesting in even submitting a proposal/bid.

Knowing how the FWSAR and MH projects went/are going...I think the work for the 140 replacement really needs to start 'for real' during APS '18, at the latest. 
 
I love getting GIBs all riled up about their platform.  Where did I learn to do this - oh yeh, when I was posted to 407 (LRP) Sqn.

IMO (In MY Opinion) - I believe I said that before - doesn't matter if its informed or not, still an opinion.  We don't need to be operating a bomb-bay equipped 4 engine monster - yup, it's a monster.  It sucks at fuel efficiency (don't retort about how you can loiter an engine), it sucks at serviceability (just like the entire H fleet of Hercs with identical engines - just because it has new wings and fancy inefficient EFIS up front, does not a new plane it make), it also is a out-dated airframe that really needs to head out to DM and hang out with the Arcturus.

I'm loving the current role that the LRP boys are playing at - C4ISR is where it's at.  Biggest, best contribution so far.  Almost enough of a motivation for posting choices to include the SGOD in the top 10 of airframes.

Four engine reliance is a 1970's catch-all, modern turbo-prop/fan engine plants have all but eliminated that extraneous cost. 

We had another AESOP on these means with almost an identical skill-set of boasting about his machine - how anybody else who didn't fly (fly in the back of it) it and their opinion didn't matter.  He's a buddy of mine - yet we still had these same "discussions".  I'm allowed to state an opinion - already discussed that above - just because I escaped that world and moved on, does not mean that I don't have an idea of what you guys are doing (wink wink, nudge nudge) - I'm just not even going to breach those subjects here. (Dang, I sorta just did, didn't I?  Help OPSEC police, shut me down......
 
Meanwhile SAAB has Bombardier Stringbags on offer:

SINGAPORE: Saab’s Swordfish MPA rolls out onto new airframes

Saab is to integrate its Swordfish maritime patrol system on two new airframes, the Bombardier Q400 turboprop and Global 6000 business jet, extending the product from the legacy Saab 2000 platform.

The extension of the product line has been driven by the emergence of an increased maritime threat leading to a requirement for more capability and flexibility from the aircraft.

“This has resulted in Saab having a lot of discussions with our potential customers regarding future requirements in the field of maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare, which we have put in to develop our Swordfish MPA system,” says Joakim Mevius, head of airborne ISR at Saab…
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/singapore-saabs-swordfish-mpa-rolls-out-onto-new-a-421898/

Stringbag (aka Fairey Swordfish):

...
Swordfish_W5856_restored_isleofwight_Colour.jpg

...
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/aircraft/swordfish.htm

Mark
Ottawa
 
MarkOttawa said:
Meanwhile SAAB has Bombardier Stringbags on offer:

Stringbag (aka Fairey Swordfish):

Mark
Ottawa

Don't be dissing the Stringbag now.  She stopped the Bismarck and showed the Japanese how to launch Pearl Harbor at Taranto. :)
 
Ditch said:
I love getting GIBs all riled up about their platform.  Where did I learn to do this - oh yeh, when I was posted to 407 (LRP) Sqn.

IMO (In MY Opinion) - I believe I said that before - doesn't matter if its informed or not, still an opinion.  We don't need to be operating a bomb-bay equipped 4 engine monster - yup, it's a monster.  It sucks at fuel efficiency (don't retort about how you can loiter an engine), it sucks at serviceability (just like the entire H fleet of Hercs with identical engines - just because it has new wings and fancy inefficient EFIS up front, does not a new plane it make), it also is a out-dated airframe that really needs to head out to DM and hang out with the Arcturus.

I'm loving the current role that the LRP boys are playing at - C4ISR is where it's at.  Biggest, best contribution so far.  Almost enough of a motivation for posting choices to include the SGOD in the top 10 of airframes.

Four engine reliance is a 1970's catch-all, modern turbo-prop/fan engine plants have all but eliminated that extraneous cost. 

We had another AESOP on these means with almost an identical skill-set of boasting about his machine - how anybody else who didn't fly (fly in the back of it) it and their opinion didn't matter.  He's a buddy of mine - yet we still had these same "discussions".  I'm allowed to state an opinion - already discussed that above - just because I escaped that world and moved on, does not mean that I don't have an idea of what you guys are doing (wink wink, nudge nudge) - I'm just not even going to breach those subjects here. (Dang, I sorta just did, didn't I?  Help OPSEC police, shut me down......

Your opinion matters.  I know of who you speak, he is a good buddy.  The CP-140M is by far the best ASW aircraft NATO has at its disposal.  Nothing comes close, the numbers would blow you away.

We all know the airframe is old and serviceability isn't the best, but what fleet (other than C-17/Chinook) has a good serv rate?  Lord knows I spent quite a few weekends on 2 hour standby while in YQQ..



 
Dolphin_Hunter said:
We all know the airframe is old and serviceability isn't the best, but what fleet (other than C-17/Chinook)

Hahahahahahaha........
 
What about something like a modified C-27J for overland ISR? License built by Bombardier of course.  ;D

Not sure if it could be feasible for ASW though. My aircraft knowledge is limited to a ride on a 140, sleeping on a herc, and maybe sitting in the back of a King Air once or twice  ;)
 
Chris Pook: Not dissing at all, love the Swordfish--stayed in service until 1945:
http://www.fleetairarm.com/exhibit/fairey-swordfish-ii-hs618/2-17-20.aspx

A tweet last year:

@DefenceHQ

The oldest surviving Swordfish in the world will lead today's #VJDay70 flypast at 2 today in #London
CMciaYFUkAAzAsr.jpg

https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/632512109843230720

Indeed Taranto 1940 above all:
http://ww2today.com/11th-november-1940-italian-fleet-attacked-in-taranto-harbour

Mark
Ottawa
 
The Swordfish was probably the most indestructible airplane ever. They would come back to the carriers riddled with machine gun and shrapnel holes, be patched up with cardboard paper, glue and varnish and be back on the flight deck in a jiffy.
 
Spectrum said:
What about something like a modified C-27J for overland ISR?

Any airplane can be modified for ISR - the USAF used King Air 350s.  FWSAR will have its own sensor suite to complement the Mark One.

Sonos on a C-27 wouldn't be too hard of stretch - Sea Herc can do it, why not something similar.  Unknown about dropping ordnance (things that go whirrr---boom) - maybe dropped off ramp via para delivery?  Slower than a bomb-bay for sure...
 
MarkOttawa said:
Chris Pook: Not dissing at all, love the Swordfish--stayed in service until 1945:
http://www.fleetairarm.com/exhibit/fairey-swordfish-ii-hs618/2-17-20.aspx

A tweet last year:

Indeed Taranto 1940 above all:
http://ww2today.com/11th-november-1940-italian-fleet-attacked-in-taranto-harbour

Mark
Ottawa

I dare anyone to try that from the backseat of a Hornet :)
 
I am not the most knowledgeable when it comes to airplanes, but I am pretty sure that most Hornets don't have a backseat.  ;D
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
I am not the most knowledgeable when it comes to airplanes, but I am pretty sure that most Hornets don't have a backseat.  ;D

B/D/F model F-18s are two seaters.
 
dapaterson said:
B/D/F model F-18s are two seaters.

[pedant]

F/A-18Fs are Super Hornets

[/pedant]

Also, E/A-18Gs are two-seaters as well.

;D
 
A jamming aircraft is cool, but I would rather see some dedicated sigint aircraft. Most of the 'professional' militaries have some. We should as well.
 
Ditch said:
I love getting GIBs all riled up about their platform.  Where did I learn to do this - oh yeh, when I was posted to 407 (LRP) Sqn.

407 - if you ever logged hours it was on Blk 2.  I started Blk 2 and thought kinda similar thoughts (who wouldn't?).  Blk 3 changed lots.

IMO (In MY Opinion) - I believe I said that before - doesn't matter if its informed or not, still an opinion.  We don't need to be operating a bomb-bay equipped 4 engine monster - yup, it's a monster.  It sucks at fuel efficiency (don't retort about how you can loiter an engine), it sucks at serviceability (just like the entire H fleet of Hercs with identical engines - just because it has new wings and fancy inefficient EFIS up front, does not a new plane it make), it also is a out-dated airframe that really needs to head out to DM and hang out with the Arcturus.

All that considered, it is still better than having NOTHING at all, like the UK went thru. 

The structural upgrade was more than 'new wings'.  Serviceability - depends on where you are at.  IMPACT #s would likely impress you TBH.

Aside from the RCAF...lots of countries are still flying the P-3...including the US actually.  They still have AIP and LSRS doing work. 

We had another AESOP on these means with almost an identical skill-set of boasting about his machine - how anybody else who didn't fly (fly in the back of it) it and their opinion didn't matter.  He's a buddy of mine - yet we still had these same "discussions".  I'm allowed to state an opinion - already discussed that above - just because I escaped that world and moved on, does not mean that I don't have an idea of what you guys are doing (wink wink, nudge nudge) - I'm just not even going to breach those subjects here. (Dang, I sorta just did, didn't I?  Help OPSEC police, shut me down......

I know him too, and he would have been taking his stance from a Block 2 at that.  I never said the drivers don't know anything..sure they do;  we are all SMEs in our own areas on the crew, right?  I know what the Blk 3 kit I operate is capable of, and having come from the Block 2 Atari world, I think the 140 is worth keeping around (that includes the 'taxpayer' part of my opinion.

Problem is, there are lots of people who read these threads.  Some are CAF mbrs who know SFA about air ops let alone LRP ops.  Some are reporters, Joe and Jane Taxpayer...all they see is a RCAF pilot saying the 140 is a waste of taxdollars. 

End state, either way, is we have the CP-140M until 2030.  After seeing the RAF lose the Nimrods and the shitshow that happened, I'd be concerned a future government of ours would do the same thing based on the 'never dropped a war shot' mentality.

If I go away and leave my house, most people would be more reluctant to break in if they knew I had a dog that can bite in the house.  No dog, less deterrent IMO.  Sub ops are not 'gone with the Cold War'.  We don't have the #s or types of subs to counter things like the Russian fleet with sub-sub ops.  We do have a modern MPA and we need to start thinking about its replacement.

We already have J Hercs, there is reason to take a serious look at the Sea Herc as a possible replacement.  14 years is a long time, EXCEPT when it comes to fleet replacement in the RCAF, demonstrated by the MH and FWSAR programs.

FWIW, I am more defensive about the CP-140 capability than the aircraft itself.  We need the capability it provides.  If it was replaced with something new [that had the same cap's and less of its lim's], I would be ALL for it.  I was on the P-8; she sure is pretty inside.

:2c:

 
Eye In The Sky said:
End state, either way, is we have the CP-140M until 2030.  After seeing the RAF lose the Nimrods and the shitshow that happened, I'd be concerned a future government of ours would do the same thing based on the 'never dropped a war shot' mentality.

When was the last time one of our ships fired a Harpoon in anger?  Better dumb down the armament on the new ships, no need for fancy weapons.

When was the last time any allied MPA-ASW aircraft dropped a torp in anger?  Falklands?

We can loiter two engines!  I have never heard anyone mention fuel efficiency when talking about the CP-140, at the end of the day who gives a shit, we can go out, find and send those mother fuckers to the bottom.  That's our job.

If packaged the right way the government would have no problem getting the public to support a defence program involving a Bombardier plane..
 
SeaKingTacco said:
External torpedos- it has to do with the minimum temperature limits of the torpedo. Cold torpedos don't do very well.

Question on this as it certainly relates to the suitability of Bombardier aircraft for an MPA role.

If low temperature of a hardpoint-mounted torpedo is the main issue, is this not something that would be easier to resolve than re-designing an aircraft to include an internal weapons bay?  Is it an issue with the type of propellant used in torpedoes?  I'm assuming that it's not the electronics since missiles and sensors are regularly externally mounted and don't appear to have any issues.

Solving this would appear to make a whole range of Bombardier aircraft (from the Q-400 to the Global Express to the C Series) much more attractive as possible replacements for the CP-140's.
 
Back
Top