CP-140 Aurora

[Kirkhill]

If the driver for determining the kit necessary to successfully complete a mission, and ultimately you need a combination of surveillance sensors to detect targets of interest, recce sensors to put eyeballs on target and some method of putting explosives or boots on the ground then how would something like this fit into the mix?

The HUNTIR camera is a 40mm munition that can be launched from any grenade launcher and hangs over a target broadcasting images for up to 7 minutes.  Presumably similar airdeployable sensors wouldn't need the charge to launch them.  Do you need charges to deploy sonobuoys?

How many could a King Air/Q400/Global Express/CP-140/P8/Predator/Global Hawk carry?  Does it allow a high altitude aircraft to stay above the weather and recce contacts?  Does it reduce the number of times you have to go under the weather?  Can it be used for target spotting and BDA?

What might be the full spectrum capabilities of a Predator with a SAR-MTI radar, EO FLIR turret, droppable cameras and a couple of Hellfires?  

Does that reduce the risk and boredom that crews have to face? Make the available crewed aircraft potentially more capable as flying command centres working with UAVs? Reduce the stress on the aircraft letting them last longer?

The answer to all of the above is yes for the marketers.  They could just as easily be no. They don't work in our application.  Or they work but not well enough to be bothered.

But the question is that the platform (and the crew) are dependent on the sensors and weapons and those are dependent on the mission.

I am constantly challenged by people that build a pretty building to make a product then expect me to fit the process into the building after they have built it.

Edit: PS If we can't afford multiple platforms then why are we contemplating the Chinook?  If Multi-Purpose is the way to go the why aren't we buying more "Multi-Purpose" Griffons?

 

[Bandit1]

Edit: PS If we can't afford multiple platforms then why are we contemplating the Chinook?  If Multi-Purpose is the way to go the why aren't we buying more "Multi-Purpose" Griffons?

I can't answer for the other items that you posted because I haven't done any research on them, but I can comment on the above.

Sure, you can use Griffs for SAR, and also as personnel carriers.  But like many other choppers out there, they have their restrictions if they are going to be used in places of conflict.  As a result, when you strap more armour onto her, and have troops weighted at combat levels, then the inherent problems with the airframe become noticed.  Throw on top of that the fact that the Griffon can't operate in theatres where we need them the most, like Afghanistan.

The Griffon is a all purpose utility chopper that doesn't do anything especially well.  With regards to the Chinook, they can move more troops, handle more of a payload, and can operate in theatres where the Griffon can't.  As a result of the forseeable acquisition of the Chinooks, as well, you'll see the vast majority of the Griffs set out to pasture, save for maybe a couple that will operate as SAR a/c at local air bases where necessary.

Hope this helps,

Bandit

 

[h3tacco]

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 think the whole point of having two fleets is that it is cheaper. especially in O&M costs. We can't afford the cost of a full-blown MPA (LRPA) for every mission when not every mission needs the capability of a full blown MPA. We didn't replace the CP-121 not because we couldn't afford to fly them, but rather because we didn't have the capital funds to purchase a replacement aircraft. 

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.

Agree but there a lot things a P-8 (or other replacement aircraft) can do that the Aurora cannot.

With regards to CF Helos - we've actually got 2 SAR types.  The Cormorant and some Griffs operate as land based SAR.

My point was that some people have said we cannot afford a fleet that doesn't have a wartime role but we already have a number of fleets that do not have a wartime role. And we plan on purchasing new fleets without a wartime role. (FWSAR, Northern Utility Aircraft) Maritime surveillance is no different. However, even with dedicated SAR aircraft other fleets are still tasked with SAR. Just like if we had a dedicated Coastal Patrol Aircraft its big brother MPA would still fill a number a maritime surveillance roles and missions.

When the Cyclone comes on board next year, you'll see the Sea Kings put out to pasture (thank God!).

That is alot farther away than some people think. 

 

[Haletown]

wonder what Coderre would make of this  . .

Fatigue risks ground 39 US Navy Lockheed P-3C Orions
By Graham Warwick

The US Navy has grounded 39 of its 161 Lockheed P-3C Orion maritime-patrol aircraft because of structural fatigue concerns. Ten of the aircraft deployed operationally are included among those grounded.

Affected aircraft "are beyond known structural limits on the lower section of the P-3", says Naval Air Systems Command, adding this is the third time since 2005 that the US Navy has grounded part of its Orion fleet because of structural concerns

rtr    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/12/17/220352/fatigue-risks-ground-39-us-navy-lockheed-p-3c-orions.html

 

[MarkOttawa]

My point was not that we have two types (fleets) of fixed-wing maritime patrol planes for the Air Force.  The fact is we already have two different civilian patrol fleets (Transport Canada Bombardiers for pollution surveillance, PAL King Airs doing fisheries patrol for DFO), plus the Aurora fleet.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/66394/post-648676.html#msg648676

Why not look at one, more capable, civilian fleet (maybe with a properly equipped patrol Q Series) to do the non-military missions, if that (and it's a big if) is cost-effective.  Such a fleet should be able to reduce the civilian work done by the Air Force and perhaps therefore the number of aircraft required for the military work--which might make it easier to persuade the government the replace the Auroras with new planes.

This is what Field Aviation says about the aircraft it is modifying for the Icelandic Coast Guard:
http://www.fieldav.com/pdf/press_20070507.pdf

The Dash 8 Q300 Maritime surveillance Aircraft (MSA) has factory equipped long-range fuel tanks giving more than 8 hours endurance, and Field will outfit the aircraft with a comprehensive sensor suite that includes a 360 degree maritime search radar, a side-looking radar and an electronic-optic/infra-red camera pod. All sensors will feed into an integrated data handling system from L-3 Communications - Integrated Systems.

The Icelandic MSA will have multi-mission capabilities, including maritime sovereignty patrol, interdiction, search and rescue, medical transportation and other first-response activities. It is equipped with launch tube for flares and oil sampling buoys, and Field’s certificated air-operable rear door will allow the
Coast Guard to air drop inflatable life rafts and paratroop rescue personnel.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Slackeur]

Perhaps if the objective is to reduce commitments required of military aircraft to patrol work, the key is to not just look at the usage/composition of the civilian fleet, but to look at what options there are to increase the effectiveness of both fleets with a good force multiplier. If time spent on searching and building the picture of what's going on off our coasts can be cut back on both these fleets, allowing them to focus on ID'ing and response, both fleets will achieve better cost effectiveness. Whether the best bet for this is a long endurance, high altitude UAV, a ground based radar system, or possibly a surveillance satellite, is a whole other topic.

As far as what the future MPA aircraft should be, the P-8 stands out as the only real choice. The Global Express platform does not seem to have the growth potential required to accommodate all the systems required for a proper multi-role MPA aircraft (sonobuoy dispenser, radar, FLIR, processing, weapons fit). If a Canadian made solution is desired, the best bet would be the C-Series (if it survives the latest go-ahead). It has far more growth potential, and right from the get go, the design for a military mission version could be done concurrently. However, with its size, it would be very close to the P-8, and outfitted for similar roles, which would seem to make its development a bit redundant. Not to mention it would be a whole new program with a whole new load of technical issues. Consequently the logical choice would seem to be the P-8, and let the industrial offsets be the economic benefit instead of a homegrown effort.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Perhaps if the objective is to reduce commitments required of military aircraft to patrol work, the key is to not just look at the usage/composition of the civilian fleet, but to look at what options there are to increase the effectiveness of both fleets with a good force multiplier. If time spent on searching and building the picture of what's going on off our coasts can be cut back on both these fleets, allowing them to focus on ID'ing and response, both fleets will achieve better cost effectiveness. Whether the best bet for this is a long endurance, high altitude UAV, a ground based radar system, or possibly a surveillance satellite, is a whole other topic.

As far as what the future MPA aircraft should be, the P-8 stands out as the only real choice. The Global Express platform does not seem to have the growth potential required to accommodate all the systems required for a proper multi-role MPA aircraft (sonobuoy dispenser, radar, FLIR, processing, weapons fit). If a Canadian made solution is desired, the best bet would be the C-Series (if it survives the latest go-ahead). It has far more growth potential, and right from the get go, the design for a military mission version could be done concurrently. However, with its size, it would be very close to the P-8, and outfitted for similar roles, which would seem to make its development a bit redundant. Not to mention it would be a whole new program with a whole new load of technical issues. Consequently the logical choice would seem to be the P-8, and let the industrial offsets be the economic benefit instead of a homegrown effort.

Please see: "Let's Buy These Aircraft" - Please read these before submitting your choice.

 

[The Bread Guy]

CF's latest word on the subject.......

The Future of the CP-140 Aurora
News release NR–07.105, 18 Dec 07

OTTAWA - The Department of National Defence today confirmed its commitment to the Aurora fleet through continued modernization and structural upgrades, keeping the aircraft flying until 2020. As part of the Government of Canada’s pledge to ensure the Canadian Forces have the equipment they need and provide value for taxpayers’ dollars, the Aurora modernization will ensure that the CF continues to protect Canada’s maritime and northern sovereignty.

“The Department will capitalize on these investments by upgrading the structure on the majority of the fleet,” said the Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay, Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. “The investment will keep the aircraft safe and operationally viable until 2020.”

“I am pleased to let our Aurora communities know that this valuable information gathering aircraft will continue its proud legacy,” said Lieutenant-General Angus Watt, the Chief of the Air Staff. “The Aurora will provide the Air Force with a significant surveillance capability until such time as a future replacement capability is acquired.”

As part of its reexamination of long-term projects, the Department has rescinded a work suspension and moved forward with the next phase of Aurora modernization which will incorporate radar, computer and other systems on Aurora aircraft. Core structural upgrades will also be carried out to ensure the longevity and safe operation of these 10 aircraft.

Three aircraft have been delivered under phase two of the fleet modernization program and three are undergoing these communication and navigation upgrades. The prototype aircraft for the third phase is in for a two-year modification and testing period, and is expected to fly in early 2009.

The Air Force and Navy are assessing and defining their needs for a long-range maritime surveillance aircraft to succeed the Aurora. Technology upgrades already made in the fleet may be transferred and reinvested in the replacement aircraft. 

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Media Liaison Office
Department of National Defence
(613) 996-2353 or 2354

Press Secretary
Minister of National Defence
(613) 996-3100

 

[MarkOttawa]

If I read the release right, only ten aircraft will be fully upgraded.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Looks like it, so for those in the know what will happen to the remaining 5 aircraft?

 

[Bograt]

cheeky switch on
Static displays- Comox, Greenwood, Bermuda, St. John's NF and Hawaii.
Cheeky switch off 

 

[aesop081]

Looks like it, so for those in the know what will happen to the remaining 5 aircraft?

Reamaining 8.....

we have 18 CP-140s

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Ok, does that 8 include the CP-140A Arcturus?

 

[aesop081]

Ok, does that 8 include the CP-140A Arcturus?

No...if it did include the arcturus i would have said :

"We have 21 CP-140 / CP-140A"


We have 18 CP-140 Aurora, 2 CP-140A Arcturus that fly and 1 CP-140A Arcturus used as a ground training aid for technician training

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Ah ok. Should have known better than to look at the numbers from wikipedia

:cheers:

 

[aesop081]

Ah ok. Should have known better than to look at the numbers from wikipedia

:cheers:

CP-140 Aurora :

140101, 140102,140103, 1404104,140105,140106,140107,140108,140109,140110,140111,140112,140113,140114,140115,140116,140117,140118

CP-140A Arcturus :

140119, 140120,140121

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Ok, didn't need the tail numbers.

BTW from wikipedia:

Canada
Canadian Forces Air Command (AIRCOM)
404 Maritime Patrol and Training Squadron, CFB Greenwood, Nova Scotia
405 Maritime Patrol Squadron, CFB Greenwood
10 × CP-140 Aurora and 3 × CP-140A Arcturus
407 Maritime Patrol Squadron, CFB Comox, British Columbia
5 × CP-140 Aurora

:cheers:

 

[aesop081]

BTW from wikipedia:

Canada
Canadian Forces Air Command (AIRCOM)
404 Maritime Patrol and Training Squadron, CFB Greenwood, Nova Scotia
405 Maritime Patrol Squadron, CFB Greenwood
10 × CP-140 Aurora and 3 × CP-140A Arcturus
407 Maritime Patrol Squadron, CFB Comox, British Columbia
5 × CP-140 Aurora

14 CP-140 Aurora and 3 CP-140A Arcturus ( one no loner flies ) are shared by :

404 MP&T Sqn, Greenwood
405 MP Sqn Greenwood
MP&EU Greenwood

( note that all 14 are not physicaly in ZX at any given time because of TLIR and AIMP)

4 CP-140 Aurora used by:

407 MP Sqn, Comox

 

[Nfld Sapper]

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

yahoo news site is reporting the upgrades are back on

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/071218/canada/canada_aurora_planes