Auroras for Afstan?

[Northernguardian]

Don't believe what you read in the papers. The MSM in Canada is famously ignorant of military matters. Only a few journalists can write anything sensible. Look at the ridiculous article by Jack Knox in the Times Colonist today for an example.

ASLEP is not going to be funded by cutting the fleet, and we are not cancelling AIMP. 

UAV's are useful, but can't replace the CP140. We'll see a replacement aircraft eventually....

 

[hank011]

Losing Auroras wouldnt be a total loss. Paying IMP and Raytheon to "dumb down" technology to work with 1960's obsolete garbage because we can only afford to pay for it "incrementally" has cost millions more than replacing the systems all at once. Contractors are making a mint because we are putting Navigators and AESOP's in engineering positions to advise on tendering of contracts. We also left it too long to be jamming Core 2 Duo processors into an X86 case. This thing still runs a thermal dot matrix printer for gods sake(its in Janes)
All the pods and radios and radar you can bolt onto the Pontiac Parisienne of the Air force world aint gonna give you a new plane.
Besides, the Arcturus' are 3 of the six(which was planned anyways). The US navy is retiring their P3's and they are newer.
I'd send them to the sandbox in a second, who bases a surveilance aircraft that can fly for thousands of miles, behind enemy lines(except us canadians). Wouldnt be long before one got hit and the Kandahar based Aurora theory would look as dumb as it sounds.

 

[x-zipperhead]

.Paying IMP and Raytheon to "dumb down" technology to work with 1960's obsolete garbage because we can only afford to pay for it "incrementally" has cost millions more than replacing the systems all at once. .

Nobody would argue that an outright upgrade would have been better than an incremental upgrade but at the time it was started it really was that or nothing.  It's not like $ was raining down from Ottawa.

Contractors are making a mint because we are putting Navigators and AESOP's in engineering positions to advise on tendering of contracts.

Can you suggest who might be better to advise then the end users?

All the pods and radios and radar you can bolt onto the Pontiac Parisienne of the Air force world aint gonna give you a new plane.

No, it gives your present plane improved capability.  The Aurora is an excellent platform the just happens to be getting old.  ASLEP was supposed to keep the plane in the air much longer. 

I'd send them to the sandbox in a second, who bases a surveilance aircraft that can fly for thousands of miles, behind enemy lines(except us canadians). Wouldnt be long before one got hit and the Kandahar based Aurora theory would look as dumb as it sounds.

You are making many assumptions.  You really appear to know just enough to be firing from the hip here.  The Americans and Aussie's have been using the P-3  and Brits the Nimrod in Afgan and Iraq to much success.  I'm not going to get into the Aurora's capabilities in this kind of an environment or what some of the potential plans were on this forum for OPSEC reasons, but I am curious what you base you opinions on?  Again, it helps to know who you are talking to and your profile is blank.

 

[hank011]

Can you suggest who might be better to advise then the end users?

Hmmm, My grandma has a telephone but I wouldnt ask her to design one. Try an engineer, AERE, CELE, someone with comms experience or radar experience or systems integration experience. Contractors(engineers to boot) were given plans and CFTO's from the original Aurora and told to "meet the specs" and then sat down with a room full of pilots and navigators to consult on the installation. It was horrible to watch but hey, its not my money. The contractors ran into simple run of the mill problems such as what another component's function was within a system. One Nav next to me actually LIED because he didnt want to look dumb. Every time there was questions about specific systems they would flail around in the hopes that someone could come up with an answer. So far, its amazing that things have gone this far. The peacemeal way it has been done with different bidders for different components within the same system has compounded the problems it was supposed to fix.
[/quote]
No, it gives your present plane improved capability.  The Aurora is an excellent platform the just happens to be getting old.  ASLEP was supposed to keep the plane in the air much longer. 
[/quote]
True, make the best of what we have. I would agree with that.
[/quote]
Again, it helps to know who you are talking to and your profile is blank.
[/quote]
Its blank for a reason, there are guys on this forum who phone you at your desk to threaten you if you dont agree with their opinion.

 

[TAS278]

It has been a very long time since my last post, I found the forums... well you know.

Anywho, on this interesting topic that has kinda branched off, into what I am sure is on everyones mind, is a reality that we may very well face. We can all be cynical about it but I believe that the forces is changing everywhere. That in its "totality" we have a new mission, a different goal. To those that say Aurora's designed as relay/coordinator's... ASW mean anything to you? The Aurora is a formidable aircraft that has had a long life. With some of these canceled improvements her life may not last as long as we had all hoped. There are  things available to those that question the future in a more private fashion, if those people wish to dig for it. The AIMP have been changed, the are being "modernized" lets say to allow for our changing goals.

I for one am a huge Aurora supporter who knows first had of her capabilities of not only her Airframe but her crews. If one day they cease to exist it will be a sad and tragic loss but hopefully it will also be a step into the future.

I implore those though that don't think an Aurora is capable of OLS to take a look at the Airframes that are there now. Maybe then you will see why some in the community feel it is a naturally step for the plane.

Well that is all for now.

Cheers
Tas

 

[x-zipperhead]

Hank, in rereading your original post I realized I missed one very important word in something I quoted you on and replied;

Contractors are making a mint because we are putting Navigators and AESOP's in engineering positions to advise on tendering of contracts.

I missed that key word.  I absolutely agree that they shouldn't be in engineering positions.  I didn't think there were any Nav's or AES Op's in engineering positions.   There are indeed AERE officers involved in AIMP and the companies have their own engineers. What I meant in my original question was why wouldn't you have the end user's of the equipment involved in the projects.  Why would you not have a Nav or AES Op providing input about what the new equipment should be able to.  They don't have to be experts in how to integrate it but they are the guys to tell you what they need.  That being said, I realize the complications of trying to make the latest gadgets work with an old system, but I don't think it is fair to accuse  Nav's and AES Op's of masquerading as engineers and blame them for the challenges.

Hmmm, My grandma has a telephone but I wouldnt ask her to design one. Try an engineer, AERE, CELE, someone with comms experience or radar experience or systems integration experience.

Agreed.  I  know of AERE's involved with AIMP.  They have the system integration and technical experience.  The Nav's and AES Op's would be the one's with the comm's and Radar, etc experience.  Both are important to the process.

Its blank for a reason, there are guys on this forum who phone you at your desk to threaten you if you don't agree with their opinion.

I didn't mean to  provide every last detail.  You can provide some general stuff about yourself without giving you work local and home address ;D
Tell me you didn't actually have someone from this forum threaten you.

 

[hank011]

Yep, a SNCO at a certain Comms Regiment in Ontario figured out my name and called my unit complaining about me. When he got me he threatened to take me out back of the mess cause I didnt think the same as him...I deleted my info the next day.
I may not be all knowing but my opinions are changeable by discussion...not by violence.

 

[Good2Golf]

Yep, a SNCO at a certain Comms Regiment in Ontario figured out my name and called my unit complaining about me. When he got me he threatened to take me out back of the mess cause I didnt think the same as him...I deleted my info the next day.
I may not be all knowing but my opinions are changeable by discussion...not by violence.

...sad

*shakes head*


G2G

 

[x-zipperhead]

Yep, a SNCO at a certain Comms Regiment in Ontario figured out my name and called my unit complaining about me. When he got me he threatened to take me out back of the mess cause I didnt think the same as him...I deleted my info the next day.
I may not be all knowing but my opinions are changeable by discussion...not by violence.

Yep, that is pretty pathetic.  After that kind of experience I can see why you keep it blank.

 

[NCRCrow]

Back to the Aurora in Afghanistan, would the threat of a MANPAD/AAA to a full Aurora crew not necessitate the use of the PRED -B (ALIX) instead to facilitate an ISR role.

The CP-140 would need a comprehensive self-defense suite. (ALR-56M?)

Maybe my friend AESOP friend (Cdn Aviator) can tell me the last time a Aurora had a weapon on its hardpoint. If he is  not to busy having a beer at the AESOPLounge.  ;D

Any takers for a TECHELINT (Sige 2810) in CFNOS Halifax Mar 19-09 Apr 07, check the DIN.  Cdn Aviator??

 

[x-zipperhead]

Back to the Aurora in Afghanistan, would the threat of a MANPAD/AAA to a full Aurora crew not necessitate the use of the PRED -B (ALIX) instead to facilitate an ISR role.

UAV'c certainly are a valuable ISR tool.  The Aurora is another tool in the tool box.  The Aurora has the advantage of having the increased spatial and situational awareness and adaptiveness that the crew provides.   You'd be surprised how much  the MK I  eyeball provides.  A UAV is limited to where it's sensors are looking and there is no way an operator on the ground can build the same situational awareness as a crew in the air.  You are correct that the crew is at risk (just as everyone accepts an acceptable level of risk to accomplish a mission) but those risks can mitigated a number of ways.  I don't think it would be appropriate to discuss the threat assessments and our ways of mitigating those threats via these means.  Rest assured we would not be blowing in somewhere accepting an unacceptable level of risk.

Maybe my friend AESOP friend (Cdn Aviator) can tell me the last time a Aurora had a weapon on its hardpoint. If he is  not to busy having a beer at the AESOPLounge.  ;D

I know this was not directed to me, but I would point out that it is common knowledge that the Aurora has a bomb bay that doesn't necessarily have to be filled with MK-46 Torpedoes

 

[aesop081]

Back to the Aurora in Afghanistan, would the threat of a MANPAD/AAA to a full Aurora crew not necessitate the use of the PRED -B (ALIX) instead to facilitate an ISR role.

The CP-140 would need a comprehensive self-defense suite. (ALR-56M?)

You should know better than to ask.

Maybe my friend AESOP friend (Cdn Aviator) can tell me the last time a Aurora had a weapon on its hardpoint. If he is  not to busy having a beer at the AESOPLounge.  ;D

i wouldnt know.  Far too busy having beers in North Island

Any takers for a TECHELINT (Sige 2810) in CFNOS Halifax Mar 19-09 Apr 07, check the DIN.  Cdn Aviator??

No thanks.

 

[hank011]

I dont think we can discuss that here...but for giggles, I would suggest that between Hfx Gwood and Comox we have too many hangar queens to support it. But it must look awesome on paper.