CMMA - replacing the CP140 Aurora

[GK .Dundas]

Apparently there are people who are utterly convinced that we can actually afford to spend probably billions to just develop such an aircraft.
Then there is the cost of buying an incredibly limited number of aircraft.
I am astounded that there are people who supposedly have a functioning cerebral cortex who some how think this is a wonderful idea .
We can do this certainly, the question is should we?
And quite frankly I honestly don't think we should.

 

[dimsum]

Apparently there are people who are utterly convinced that we can actually afford to spend probably billions to just develop such an aircraft.
Then there is the cost of buying an incredibly limited number of aircraft.
I am astounded that there are people who supposedly have a functioning cerebral cortex who some how think this is a wonderful idea .
We can do this certainly, the question is should we?
And quite frankly I honestly don't think we should.

Those folks generally look back at the “good old days” when Canada made aircraft. They don’t realize that the aviation industry is nothing like what it was like when it was building the Arrow.

 

[YZT580]

Apparently there are people who are utterly convinced that we can actually afford to spend probably billions to just develop such an aircraft.
Then there is the cost of buying an incredibly limited number of aircraft.
I am astounded that there are people who supposedly have a functioning cerebral cortex who some how think this is a wonderful idea .
We can do this certainly, the question is should we?
And quite frankly I honestly don't think we should.

because nobody has invented a truly Canadian wheel

 

[childs56]

My response was to dimsums post stating that the Bombardier plane could not do the job due to bein a civilian plane. Where the 747-800 is also a civi plane converted over.
Bombardiers problem is they jumped on the game to late, did not put more thought then the Canadian Gov was going to give them a gob pile of money to make the plane. What they should be doing is build a working model and prove to others they can make it work. Then maybe get some sales overseas with smaller countries. But that would not be the Bombardier way would it. Instead they have their hand out to the tax payers to pay for their project that may or may not work.

 

[dimsum]

My response was to dimsums post stating that the Bombardier plane could not do the job due to bein a civilian plane. Where the 747-800 is also a civi plane converted over.
Bombardiers problem is they jumped on the game to late, did not put more thought then the Canadian Gov was going to give them a gob pile of money to make the plane. What they should be doing is build a working model and prove to others they can make it work. Then maybe get some sales overseas with smaller countries. But that would not be the Bombardier way would it. Instead they have their hand out to the tax payers to pay for their project that may or may not work.

I didn’t say that.

I said that the issue was having an airframe do something it wasn’t designed to do. Once the 737 platform proved it could be done (ie. The P-8A) then there was no issue. A Bombardier platform hasn’t proven that yet.

You said that Bombardier could do the same…which is fine, but they didn’t, and haven’t yet. So, in Oct 2023, between the choice of a proven platform in use with all of our allies and something that doesn’t exist, what should the GoC choose?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I didn’t say that.

I said that the issue was having an airframe do something it wasn’t designed to do. Once the 737 platform proved it could be done (ie. The P-8A) then there was no issue. A Bombardier platform hasn’t proven that yet.

You said that Bombardier could do the same…which is fine, but they didn’t, and haven’t yet. So, in Oct 2023, between the choice of a proven platform in use with all of our allies and something that doesn’t exist, what should the GoC choose?

The aircraft that allows the most Liberal MPs to stand up in local riding press conferences and declare that “Canada is back”?

 

[Good2Golf]

The aircraft that allows the most Liberal MPs to stand up in local riding press conferences and declare that “Canada is back”?

Don’t forget NDP voters as well to keep the LPC pseudo-majority working.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Don’t forget NDP voters as well to keep the LPC pseudo-majority working.

See- that is the thing: the NDP seem to work for the Liberals for free. The Liberals take all the credit and the NDP eats the blame.

Circling back to the point: politicians, especially this Government only obliquely care about operational capability (and that is putting things charitably). They care about votes….

 

[childs56]

I didn’t say that.

I said that the issue was having an airframe do something it wasn’t designed to do. Once the 737 platform proved it could be done (ie. The P-8A) then there was no issue. A Bombardier platform hasn’t proven that yet.

You said that Bombardier could do the same…which is fine, but they didn’t, and haven’t yet. So, in Oct 2023, between the choice of a proven platform in use with all of our allies and something that doesn’t exist, what should the GoC choose?

Sorry I used the term Civilian. Your quote" The issue in this instance is that Bombardier is trying to use a proven platform in one area (business transport and high-altitude surveillance) in a totally different area (ASW, whether high or low, with munitions)".
Boeing did the same thing with the 737-800, Turned a Passenger/ Cargo plane into a ASW platform. So it is feasible Bombardier could do the same thing, Afterall they do have a few of their planes flying around performing other then normal civilian duties.

I think the biggest issues is how they are trying to muscle their way into a process they failed to provide in the beginning. If they had a viable bid then they should have built the prototype and marketed it. I am sure even if we did not buy it they have other customers who would have been interested. GD I am sure could have got them some funding if Bombardier was serious about being a market contender. Like usual they are asking for money after the fact and hoping it comes through.

I do think the P8 will provide a better platform, better long term servicing/ parts supply, better business support and jobs here in Canada then the Bombardier one. That is based on job numbers and aircraft numbers.

If I was Bombardier I would be putting together a bid for a Aircraft that could do land/maritime surveillance for the Coast Guard and DFO. That had a SKAD droppable capability. That could do surveillance, a bit of radio monitoring/jamming and possibly dual role if the Airforce needed a plane for offense/defence operations. This could set them up for decent sales domestic and around the world. Provide a needed service we are lacking. Help them expand their line of offerings. If they could do that at a reasonable cost then it would be a good combination.

I do not like Bombardier, they are a deep money pit, need to either sink or tread water without all the tax payer bail out.
I hope De Havilland comes out of the gate in a few years and starts to offer a alternative to the current Military aircraft for short, medium haul and surveillance. Canada could have a very competitive Aerospace industry if it was run by competent people.

 

[Good2Golf]

Boeing did the same thing with the 737-800, Turned a Passenger/ Cargo plane into a ASW platform. So it is feasible Bombardier could do the same thing, Afterall they do have a few of their planes flying around performing other then normal civilian duties.

Boeing has amortized the non-recurring engineering of the required modifications over almost 200 airframes. The business case for a one-off orphan fleet for Canada is horrendous (Canada’s business case…not BBD’s obviously…they’d make sure not to lose money for the officers and shareholders…)

If I was Bombardier I would be putting together a bid for an Aircraft that could do land/maritime surveillance for the Coast Guard and DFO. That had a SKAD droppable capability. That could do surveillance, a bit of radio monitoring/jamming and possibly dual role if the Airforce needed a plane for offense/defence operations. This could set them up for decent sales domestic and around the world. Provide a needed service we are lacking. Help them expand their line of offerings. If they could do that at a reasonable cost then it would be a good combination.

Aussie experience using BBD Chally 604s to drop SKADs for National SAR enters the chat…

#buylotsofspareenginenacelles

 

[childs56]

Boeing has amortized the non-recurring engineering of the required modifications over almost 200 airframes. The business case for a one-off orphan fleet for Canada is horrendous (Canada’s business case…not BBD’s obviously…they’d make sure not to lose money for the officers and shareholders…)



Aussie experience using BBD Chally 604s to drop SKADs for National SAR enters the chat…

#buylotsofspareenginenacelles

They kicked a 38kg package out the back door and it hit the engine nacelle. Interesting.
I wonder if the Aurora kicked a box out the door if it would hit the stabilizer?
How about the Kingfisher having Jumpers not clearing the aft section.

Teething problems are expected. I wonder how many mishaps the P8 had during its intial use?

 

[YZT580]

Would there be an advantage for zero-timing the CP140 using it for SAR. It has reasonable speed and range for covering all of Canada within crew duty time. Granted we bought the Kingfisher but it has loads of troubles and is slow to boot. Just asking....

 

[Good2Golf]

They kicked a 38kg package out the back door and it hit the engine nacelle. Interesting.
I wonder if the Aurora kicked a box out the door if it would hit the stabilizer?
How about the Kingfisher having Jumpers not clearing the aft section.

Teething problems are expected. I wonder how many mishaps the P8 had during its intial use?

I can’t speak to the CP-140 or CC-295, but a friend of mine who flew AMSA’s Dorniers was offered a job by Cobham as they took over the contract. He asked them what they’d be flying, and they looked slowly side to side before leaning forward and whispering “CL-604s….” He immediately passed. They’ve apparently gone through high single-digits of engine nacelles and numerous flight incidents with the ‘commercial, not purpose-built but operationally flexibly employed’ aircraft. There are teething problems, and then there are (as in this case) ongoing operational shortcomings. My cynical pragmatically realistic self’s take on things is to expect nothing much better from Bombardier now as then…

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Would there be an advantage for zero-timing the CP140 using it for SAR. It has reasonable speed and range for covering all of Canada within crew duty time. Granted we bought the Kingfisher but it has loads of troubles and is slow to boot. Just asking....

I think probably not.

All it gets you is the “S” part of SAR, and it would be a bag load of money to redo tails, wings, fuselages…well, everything.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Canada could have a very competitive Aerospace industry if it was run by competent people.

Canada does have a competitive aerospace industry and it is run by competent people. They provide parts, systems, sub-systems, software and simulators that are world beating to companies like Boeing, Bell Textron, Airbus, Lockmart, etc.

That doesn't mean that we as a country can compete in the world of heavyweight plane building companies. Even Airbus, with all the backing of the heavy weight countries of Europe, have a hard time competing against an industry that is fundamentally subsidized by the US government through huge military contracts and almost guaranteed sales - because the US wants to maintain a home war building industry alive at all costs.

 

[dimsum]

They kicked a 38kg package out the back door and it hit the engine nacelle. Interesting.
I wonder if the Aurora kicked a box out the door if it would hit the stabilizer?
How about the Kingfisher having Jumpers not clearing the aft section.

That’s pretty much what the Kiwis (and maybe Aussies) do.

 

[Ostrozac]

See- that is the thing: the NDP seem to work for the Liberals for free. The Liberals take all the credit and the NDP eats the blame.

Elections are expensive and the NDP seems to have lost the ability to fundraise. Thus, they are terrified of elections. Last I heard, they are still in debt from the last federal election. Hence, their current status as LPC lapdogs. The alternative option, multiple unstable minorities leading to elections every two years, was on track to bankrupt the party.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Elections are expensive and the NDP seems to have lost the ability to fundraise. Thus, they are terrified of elections. Last I heard, they are still in debt from the last federal election. Hence, their current status as LPC lapdogs. The alternative option, multiple unstable minorities leading to elections every two years, was on track to bankrupt the party.

I would submit that this track is not doing them any favours, either.

 

[Good2Golf]

Canada does have a competitive aerospace component industry and it is run by competent people. They provide parts, systems, sub-systems, software and simulators that are world beating to companies like Boeing, Bell Textron, Airbus, Lockmart, etc.

…and a big niche market airframe supplier and a small mostly in-service airframe supporter.

No doubt that the Pratts and Heroux-Devtecs and Ben Machines and Magellan Aerospaces support the primes as you note. That in no way makes for a viable bespoke ASW platform.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

They kicked a 38kg package out the back door and it hit the engine nacelle. Interesting.
I wonder if the Aurora kicked a box out the door if it would hit the stabilizer?
How about the Kingfisher having Jumpers not clearing the aft section.

Teething problems are expected. I wonder how many mishaps the P8 had during its intial use?

Did the bow fall off and was it made of cardboard?