CMMA - replacing the CP140 Aurora

[OldSolduer]

“Because-Bombardier!” Thank-you, now where do we pick up our dumptruck full of money to deliver vapourware?

Hey we have dunder head executives we have to pay huge bonuses to. You don't get incompetency with out paying for it!!!!

 

[quadrapiper]

I’m not sure how this is like the F-35 procurement. The F-35 situation was that at the time, the LPC platform was to not buy the F-35.

And that may well have been informed partly by the (I think somewhat earlier, but allow for time for concepts to filter out of defence circles into others' awareness) uncertainty about (IIRC) the F-35's capabilities, software, and so on: all the things that a government that isn't keen to label themselves as the Party of National Defence might take one look at, along with the massive cost, and say dodged that lemon. Consider the LCS, Zumwalt, and the nature of US procurement (throw money at it until it works/run "niche" fleets bigger than everyone else's primary fleet), and an at the time quieter international stage, and it's not unreasonable to be wary of unproven kit.

That those bugs have now been worked out, and Canada's now getting a fleet of F-35s, is excellent.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

UK blunder was our benefit

 

[Spencer100]

I’m not sure how this is like the F-35 procurement. The F-35 situation was that at the time, the LPC platform was to not buy the F-35. All 5 bidders at the time were real aircraft.

This situation is where one bidder has an actual airplane in service with many of our allies, and one that is a drawing and an orphan fleet if we go that route. With the history of the Kingfisher and the Cyclone, I suspect that the RCAF and the GoC would be wary of the bad press.

Also, the P-8 group has a ton of Canadian companies in the bid, so they can also argue for Canadian jobs.

In many way it is like the F-35. Very political. Now it is Quebec Inc., the PM, CDN nationalist, anti-americans, vs Boeing and logic.

Remember on the basic level Bombardier has a plane that flies. Its just the mission bits it needs.....really all the hard stuff! but most people don't understand that.

 

[FSTO]

I’m not sure how this is like the F-35 procurement. The F-35 situation was that at the time, the LPC platform was to not buy the F-35. All 5 bidders at the time were real aircraft.

This situation is where one bidder has an actual airplane in service with many of our allies, and one that is a drawing and an orphan fleet if we go that route. With the history of the Kingfisher and the Cyclone, I suspect that the RCAF and the GoC would be wary of the bad press.

Also, the P-8 group has a ton of Canadian companies in the bid, so they can also argue for Canadian jobs.

Dimsum you are arguing with facts and a real plane backing you up against a history of idiotic decisions. I don't like your odds.

 

[Quirky]

That those bugs have now been worked out, and Canada's now getting a fleet of F-35s, is excellent.

We could’ve been flying F-35s and had them in service years ago if it wasn’t for LPC stupidity and ignorance. Having “buggy” airplanes isn’t an excuse when we could’ve have a 5th gen platform already.

 

[Dana381]

We could’ve been flying F-35s and had them in service years ago if it wasn’t for LPC stupidity and ignorance. Having “buggy” airplanes isn’t an excuse when we could’ve have a 5th gen platform already.

Had we bought the F-35s years ago we would have had buggy planes. Stalling has actually helped us tremendously in this one example. They are also a whole lot cheaper now than years ago.

 

[CBH99]

We could’ve been flying F-35s and had them in service years ago if it wasn’t for LPC stupidity and ignorance. Having “buggy” airplanes isn’t an excuse when we could’ve have a 5th gen platform already.

The per unit acquisition cost back then was substantially more than it is now.

The computers & systems in those early lot aircraft aren’t even compatible with the computers & systems that go into current aircraft rolling off the assembly line…heck the airframes themselves have actually changed slightly!


If we’d gone ahead with our purchase of 65 aircraft - those aircraft would essentially be an orphan fleet with outdated software, unique hardware, less effective radar-evading technologies, less effective EW systems, and cost a lot more to maintain… us taking our sweet time while the bugs got worked out & the program matured actually worked in our favour.

(I get your point tho)

 

[CBH99]

Please forgive the delayed question here, re Kingfisher

The CC-295 Kingfisher is based off of a mature platform thats in service with other nations…is it not?



I know deliveries started last year, but are we having difficulties or challenges in using them as intended?

 

[KevinB]

Please forgive the delayed question here, re Kingfisher

The CC-295 Kingfisher is based off of a mature platform thats in service with other nations…is it not?



I know deliveries started last year, but are we having difficulties or challenges in using them as intended?

Except it’s not.
You can base something off a mature airframe, but when it’s a total change to the intended role, that doesn’t necessarily work.

I mean one would have expected some thought to go into the actual SAR role as opposed to taking a transport aircraft and then trying to jam the EO items, and not think about jump capabilities until too late…

How a delay to CC-295 operations could impact RCAF search-and-rescue - Skies Mag

Pushing back initial operational capability of the CC-295 will disrupt SAR pilots and maintenance technicians preparing to transition to the new aircraft.

skiesmag.com

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I'm sure this has been asked and answered somewhere on the last forty pages, but how thrashed are the airframes themselves?

Also, "the 2030s" aren't that far off, even if P-8s were ordered tomorrow with no more modifications than "we'll have those in RCAF charcoal, please."

The airframes are ok. ASLEP and all the normal second and third line stuff.

Now, let’s talk parts and spares…and how serviceability is impacted.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

View attachment 77651

Bombardier partners with General Dynamics on platform that meets Canada’s Multi-Mission Aircraft requirements - Skies Mag

Bombardier is collaborating with General Dynamics on a multi-mission and anti-submarine warfare aircraft that will meet the requirements for Canada.

skiesmag.com

Hmmm. No mention of drag count and combat radius. How odd.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

And this why the DND is looking to life extend the CP140.

As I have posted before, you could see this coming. Quebec Inc, the Liberal party, and are not onboard with the Boeing plan. Bombardier should be able to sell this very easily. You will have Quebec on side from the start. You can get the Canadian anti American side going along. The press is already onside plus will do what they are told now. Now with GD in on it. They have a good size footprint in the Canada.

Taking bets on:

1. The 16 unit buy of P-8
2. A competition with P-8 and the Bomber.
3. Slit buy of some P-8's and future buy of the magic CAD Bomber design.

I'm going with number 3. Mainly because its the best outcome I think we can hope for. In that we get some P-8 v the most likely outcome of the Bomber vaporware. I do think Bombardier is the front runner now. It's almost impossible to soul source now. "They have a plane, see here's the drawing"

Extra point.....name of the Bombardier design? I'm going with Argus II.

Extending the Aurora beyond 2030 was always a possible COA and option. Always.

Bombardier had and has nothing to do with that.

 

[KevinB]

Extending the Aurora beyond 2030 was always a possible COA and option. Always.

Bombardier had and has nothing to do with that.

Are they getting you feathered suits to fly yourself when the birds fall apart?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I wonder how many weapons it can carry. Perhaps we don't want to do that anymore; look don't touch.

Even just for trying they will no doubt get government money thrown at them. Too bad they sold off most of their useful product line.

None. It’s a model and a picture. It can carry itty bitty model ordinance only.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Are they getting you feathered suits to fly yourself when the birds fall apart?

They are in phase 1 analysis. Prototype should be ready for 2074.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

UK blunder was our benefit

Andy is just so relaxed and natural in front of the camera. He should have went into movies not the SGOD!

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Please forgive the delayed question here, re Kingfisher

The CC-295 Kingfisher is based off of a mature platform thats in service with other nations…is it not?



I know deliveries started last year, but are we having difficulties or challenges in using them as intended?

Yes. And yes.

 

[Zoomie]

Probably not a good source of information for the 295 is Skies Magazine.

Plane flies just fine, sensors work great - sky is not falling. Don’t get too riled up by the hype….

 

[Maxman1]

Probably not a good source of information for the 295 is Skies Magazine.

Plane flies just fine, sensors work great - sky is not falling. Don’t get too riled up by the hype….

They're not currently in service, and aren't expected to be fully operational until at least 2025.

Government of Canada provides an update on the operationalization of the CC-295 Kingfisher - Canada.ca

A modern and capable military is critical to Canada’s domestic security and our contribution on the world stage. This includes our role in domestic maritime search and rescue.

www.canada.ca