CP-140 Aurora

[Kirkhill]

Bulls Eye:

Just to be clear.  I have absolutely no idea of the relative life cycle costs of a fully equipped and crewed CP-140 vice a King Air equipped for Fisheries and Environmental patrols.  As you noted it was purely hypothetical and an opening for debate.

Cheers.

 

[eerickso]

Good idea for air shows

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YRVDUB7Drk&feature=related

 

[aesop081]

Its in Japanese but the video is pretty representative of the buisness we do

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgU8aX6Nevs&feature=related

 

[Sub_Guy]

Bring back the Argus!  We had a decent fleet of those bad boys and they had legs, 31 hours now that's a patrol.  Canadian made

 

[Loachman]

Numbers of aircraft and numbers of hours and costs of airframes are meaningless.

They do not reflect capability.

Range, endurance, and onboard sensors are not reflected in those numbers.

In the days before thermal imagery and modern airborne radar, back when crews relied upon naked eyes and binoculars, your comparisons would have had some validity.

Not today.

King Airs would not have the range and endurance of Auroras. One would burn up many hours just in transit to and from patrol areas as aircraft would have to rotate in and out more frequently. Lack of comparable sensors could require more aircraft to cover the same area as one Aurora. More crews would have to be trained and paid to operate them. One could well end up spending as much money, or even more, in the long run and still not have the flexibility that a proper platform would give.

A suggestion that a King Air could fly almost twice as many hours than an Aurora annually is also meaningless, unless you can back that up.

It's not as simple as you think, and that's why we pay smart guys with more rank than me and experience in the applicable field to gather ALL of the appropriate and relevant information and work out decent solutions (whether or not the government accepts and funds such recommendations is a different matter).

 

[aesop081]

Bring back the Argus!   We had a decent fleet of those bad boys and they had legs, 31 hours now that's a patrol.   Canadian made

:rofl:

a 10 hour MPAT will cure your system of the above comment.

 

[Bulls Eye]

Loachman, you are absolutely correct, the numbers do not reflect capability. The King Air, does not have the endurance, range, or the drop capabilities of the Aurora. The Aurora is truly a workhorse for the mission it does. I completely and totally concur that the King Air, or any other civilian capability for that matter is not anywhere near or should be considered to be a replacement to any MPA military capability.

Canada needs a military MPA presence, but does not need it to be the only source of domestic maritime surveillance capability. It is simply not cost-effective to have military MPA's performing the maritime surveillance requirements of ALL government departments.

Those King Air guys have some of the best point target detection capability in the world and some of them are using fully multimode radars that use at least SpotSAR, ISAR and StripSAR, GMTI, and SeaMTI, positively identify ships at night and are a significant contribution to the RMP.

As for numbers, I am also aware that the existing King Air program pumped out more than 7,000 hours in the last fiscal year on 4 aircraft. People here may may be aware how many hours the 18 Auroras put out. However, this comparison is fundamentally not correct. Those King Air's may have put out those hours, but they do not have ESM or MAD, endurance or drop capabilities. They are used for a non-military function. That is not to say, however, that they do not contribute to military objectives because they do contribute. The detection, classification and identification of a target at sea, is a significant contribution.

The goal here, however, is to not compare what one program does versus another. Both are needed. You need military assets to cover military missions, and you need civilian assets to cover civilian requirements. It is simply not cost effect to use military assets for non-military functions. Otherwise, lets replace all the police vehicles in Canada with military tanks. Hmmm, come to think of it, that could actually be a little fun ;D

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Bring back the Argus!   We had a decent fleet of those bad boys and they had legs, 31 hours now that's a patrol.   Canadian made

Yeah and there's one sitting on top of a pedestal outside the gate at Greenwood....we could just flash that sucker up and put her to work!! :

 

[observor 69]

Bring back the Argus!   We had a decent fleet of those bad boys and they had legs, 31 hours now that's a patrol.   Canadian made

Flying into a foreign airport, "Say type of aircraft again."    Argus ??

Try and get avgas for it today.

31 hour patrol and another 31 hours for the body to recover. 

 

[George Wallace]

Flying into a foreign airport, "Say type of aircraft again."     Argus ??

Try and get avgas for it today.

31 hour patrol and another 31 hours for the body to recover.  

I suppose you could also say: "Try finding engines for it today?" 

I suppose an upgraded, redesigned Argus would have no problems with new engines finding AVGAS.


...................................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
So?  Where has our AeroSpace Industry gone............................since Bombardier and its Government "Grants" and "Loans" has bought up and closed down all the competition?

 

[MarkOttawa]

It's not just the King Air--the capabilities of modified Bombardier Q Series might be worth looking at:
http://www.fieldav.com/pdf/press_20070507.pdf
http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=3_0&lang=en&file=/en/3_0/pressrelease.jsp%3Fgroup%3D3_0%26lan%3Den%26action%3Dview%26mode%3Dlist%26year%3Dnull%26id%3D4724%26sCateg%3D3_0
http://www.tc.gc.ca/mediaroom/releases/atl/2006/06-a015e.htm
http://www.tc.gc.ca/mediaroom/backgrounders/b04-M126e.htm
http://www.marinepollution.gc.ca/eng/surveillance/aerial_surveillance/captured_images/menu.htm

Second last link gives patrol hours.  Last link has photos and lots of technical detail.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Or perhaps this Lockheed Martin Airship might be a useful tool in the toolbag.

http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/jdw/jdw031006_1_n.shtml

As I understand Loachman and Bulls Eye it's all about the sensor and time on station for surveillance.  Reconnaissance, going out an looking at a specific target requires speed and stealth.  Strike, going out and eliminating threats, well that depends on what you want to strike with.  All sorts of different needs requiring different platforms.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Tranport Canada actually uses four Bombardier aircraft for aerial surveillance (the three mentioned in this Oct. 2006 report, plus the new one with the advanced sensor suite; another one with that suite appears to be being readied for Pacific use--I can't figure out if it's a new plane or one of the other three being upgraded):
http://www.ssopfund.gc.ca/english/outreach3.asp

A representative of Transport Canada, Mr. Louis Armstrong, highlighted several initiatives aimed at increasing the effectiveness of the National Aerial Surveillance Program (NASP), notably the acquisition of a new suite of remote sensing equipment for the Dash 8 pollution surveillance aircraft. The NASP utilizes three aircraft located strategically across Canada to conduct pollution surveillance. Two of these aircraft are leased from Transport Canada's Aircraft Services Directorate, and the third is under contracted from Provincial Airlines Limited. During the November meeting Transport Canada noted that over-flight statistics indicates a decline in observed oil pollution over the past few years. It was also emphasized that there has been a recent increase in aircraft patrol hours funded through the Oceans Action Plan, coupled with the acquisition of earth observation imagery to task aircraft.

So in fact there already is a fleet of seven civilian aircraft doing maritime patrol for the Canadian government: four Bombardiers doing pollution patrols for Transport Canada and the three  PAL King Airs doing fisheries patrols for DFO.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[aesop081]

Those King Air guys have some of the best point target detection capability in the world and some of them are using fully multimode radars that use at least SpotSAR, ISAR and StripSAR, GMTI, and SeaMTI, positively identify ships at night and are a significant contribution to the RMP.

This is what the PAL King Airs are using for radar :

http://www.provincialaerospace.com/AMSDRadar.htm

 

[h3tacco]

As a side note.

DHC had planned to sell the CF the CP-142 (MP version of CT-142 Gonzo) to replace the CP-121 Tracker and its maritime surveillance role. I don't know the full story but DND never did buy it and never did really replace the CP-121. As people have already noted Bombardier has subsequently sold Coastal Surveillance Dash-8s to various countries.

 

[Bandit1]

But they have nowhere near the capabilities of the Aurora, so what would be the point here in Canada?

Bandit

 

[h3tacco]

You are correct that they wouldn't be able to handle the full role of missions of a CP-140. But at one time we had two fleets carrying out maritime surveillance the CP-140 and the CP-121 (three if you count the short lived CP-144 Challenger). Many of the missions carried out now by the CP-140 or PAL were handled by the CP-121.

I believe at the end of the day a mixed fleet will be the most cost-effective. We did it in the past, we do it now, and we will do it in the future.

If you look at the CF helos we have one fleet dedicated to SAR with no wartime role why wouldn't we do this for maritime surveillance.

 

[aesop081]

I believe at the end of the day a mixed fleet will be the most cost-effective.

We already have that in the CP-140/A & PAL arrangement. As far as i'm concerned, it works well.

 

[Bandit1]

You are correct that they wouldn't be able to handle the full role of missions of a CP-140. But at one time we had two fleets carrying out maritime surveillance the CP-140 and the CP-121 (three if you count the short lived CP-144 Challenger). Many of the missions carried out now by the CP-140 or PAL were handled by the CP-121.

I believe at the end of the day a mixed fleet will be the most cost-effective. We did it in the past, we do it now, and we will do it in the future.

If you look at the CF helos we have one fleet dedicated to SAR with no wartime role why wouldn't we do this for maritime surveillance.

But you can't afford to run 2 fleets anymore - that was the whole reason of getting an aircraft which could handle all the capabilities necessary for MP, and as the Aurora has shown, it can do everything we need it to.  The only thing is, we now need new airframes, which is why I'm a little concerned that any movement on the project is slow in coming.

I don't disagree that a mixed fleet will be cost effective - I'd gladly have some UAV's helping out occasionally.  But the fact is, we need all of our Aurora's air worthy because there is nothing, not even the P-8, in my opinion, which will be able to do the same job as they can.

With regards to CF Helos - we've actually got 2 SAR types.  The Cormorant and some Griffs operate as land based SAR.  When the Cyclone comes on board next year, you'll see the Sea Kings put out to pasture (thank God!).  The Griffs, while they operate as a utility a/c, can be used in times of war, but here's the thing - they have so many limitations to them that they can't operate in theatres such as Afghanistan.  That is why we need the new Chinooks that (hopefully) will be coming soon.

Bandit

 

[Bulls Eye]

PAL apparently has 4 of those smaller King Air's doing work for GOC; one in Comox, one in Halifax and two in Sin John's. I was also told that that two of them operate with the Litton APS-504(V)5, and the other two with the brand new ELTA EL/M2022A(V)3. Upgrades for the other two soon I would assume.

Looks also like they are spreading their wings a bit:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1283945/M/