A
aesop081
Guest
hauger said:
I'm aware of that incident. As a matter of fact i was watching the animation replay of it a few days ago.
CP-140 Aurora
- Thread starter cplcaldwell
- Start date
I'm aware of that incident. As a matter of fact i was watching the animation replay of it a few days ago.
hauger said:
Just having some cheap fun at your expense.
I was nice to somebody earlier, and must keep everything in balance.
hauger said:Tough but fair. Me thinks me will chill out a bit now.
Anyways....I'm done. I'll leave the thread to the adults now.
Don't worry about it. I thought that you were doing alright.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
hauger said:
Don't sweat it dude. You comments and questions are fair ball and good discussion. All that matters is that most of us think your comments are fine. I am more than willing to chat about this stuff with you, either by PM or in the thread. It's good professional development. Just don't take stuff personally.
You are correct, there was a bad CP-140 incident with VMCA involved. It happened in St John's NL around 1999. I know both the pilots and I know that some mistakes were made. Beyond that, because these folks are friends of mine, I would prefer you look for open source information in the flight safety system to get the results. Suffice to say, the crew was dstracted by several snags. They got too slow, and executed a go around at below the minimum speed. If not for the final intervention of the AC who corrected things in time, we would likely have had a hull loss and some dead folks because of that incident. Thank the good Lord for helping the AC to intervene, it was that close.
It is an excellent CRM and aircraft handling lesson. Well worth discussing in the pilot ready room. Just ask your WFSO for the FSR and SR and the video.
Cheers, and keep smiling.
Bart
- Reaction score
- 18
- Points
- 530
hauger - As previously stated, I have been wrong on occasion. Based on the comments here by the SMEs, my perception was indeed off, apparently. Please accept my apologies for insinuating that you may have been posting out of your league, on this thread.
I knew there was a reason I rarely leave the Combat Arms forums... ^-^
I knew there was a reason I rarely leave the Combat Arms forums... ^-^
A
aesop081
Guest
So.......about that P-8.......
A
aesop081
Guest
Loachman said:
Pot, kettel.......
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Okay, I'll bite...
I'm not advocating anything here, just throwing a few more irons on the fire for the sake of discussion;
Let's say we go ahead, and maybe get some new FWSAR airframes (I know, I know, I'm not holding my breath either). One may notice that both the major contenders offer dedicated MP variants, with a couple dozen CN-235s already operational in this role with customers all over the world (ie, the USCG as the HC-144). No-one has fielded the C-27J in the MP role yet, but Alenia/LM have offered it in competitions, and can afford to eat some development costs for the sake of having a happy launch customer.
Obviously these aren't going to be hunting Russian subs, so they are hardly a drop-in replacement for the Aurora or P-8. But so far as I know, killing subs is far from the be-all and end-all of the requirement. A lot of the job seems to involve flying around and looking at/for stuff. Some of it even looks down-right similar to the SAR jobs we'd be buying them for.
So ASSUMING (necessary condition) that we buy some FWSAR birds, how about buying a few extras in an MP configuration, to augment a P-8 buy?
- it can spend lots of hours in the air for a lot cheaper than a P-8, for those times when you don't plan on killing anyone
- uses an existing airframe type (this is the biggest key, without this the idea doesn't fly in any way at all)
- Their radius is at least in the same ball-park as the P-8 (1,500 NM give or take, more take than give),
- FLIR, decent radar, CCD camera, whatever electronic goodies we can afford, would give it a good sensor fit for surveillance
- saves ballpark of $100-150 million in purchase price/airframe vs a P-8 (P-8s ain't gonna be cheap)
- may be more suitable than a P-8 for ground-surveillance missions in terms of op cost, and low- (med?) level endurance
- looking to the future, a guy in the back of a FWSAR could control armed UCAVs to do the shooting
- is a LOT more flexible than contracted King-Airs and stuff (Rear door, serious cargo capacity, more range, more avionics, is organic to CF, etc)
The probly $200+ million P-8 can still tear around chasing submarines, burning oceans of dinosaur juice (CFM56 has a SFC of 0.38 x 27,300lb x 2 = $$$), tossing missiles and sonobouys and running UAVs and stuff, which are all jobs that need to be done. But when you're just dropping in on some dodgy Spanish fishing boat dumping bilge water, or for SAR taskings, or other non-combat roles, it seems to me that a FWSAR airframe could do a comparable job for a lot cheaper. And if things go sour, the speed a P-8 brings to the table could still provide a dedicated shooter on the scene in a timely fashion.
obvious down-sides to the idea include:
- Not made in Quebec
- Not armed (maybe could accomodate some sono-bouys if needed, but would that be really useful?)
- Not many guys in the back (could add a bunch of workstations, but would be pricey)
- I'm sure people will jump in with others
I have no beef with the P-8, but I think it'll be too obscenely expensive to be palletable to Canadian taxpayers, and we're liable to wind up with a very small fleet if we get it at all. Some MP-configured FWSAR airframes might allow us to make do with a relatively small P-8 buy.
This is just a sketchy idea I've been chewing on for a while, and thought I'd throw it on the fire.
Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? Insults?
The floor is open...
I'm not advocating anything here, just throwing a few more irons on the fire for the sake of discussion;
Let's say we go ahead, and maybe get some new FWSAR airframes (I know, I know, I'm not holding my breath either). One may notice that both the major contenders offer dedicated MP variants, with a couple dozen CN-235s already operational in this role with customers all over the world (ie, the USCG as the HC-144). No-one has fielded the C-27J in the MP role yet, but Alenia/LM have offered it in competitions, and can afford to eat some development costs for the sake of having a happy launch customer.
Obviously these aren't going to be hunting Russian subs, so they are hardly a drop-in replacement for the Aurora or P-8. But so far as I know, killing subs is far from the be-all and end-all of the requirement. A lot of the job seems to involve flying around and looking at/for stuff. Some of it even looks down-right similar to the SAR jobs we'd be buying them for.
So ASSUMING (necessary condition) that we buy some FWSAR birds, how about buying a few extras in an MP configuration, to augment a P-8 buy?
- it can spend lots of hours in the air for a lot cheaper than a P-8, for those times when you don't plan on killing anyone
- uses an existing airframe type (this is the biggest key, without this the idea doesn't fly in any way at all)
- Their radius is at least in the same ball-park as the P-8 (1,500 NM give or take, more take than give),
- FLIR, decent radar, CCD camera, whatever electronic goodies we can afford, would give it a good sensor fit for surveillance
- saves ballpark of $100-150 million in purchase price/airframe vs a P-8 (P-8s ain't gonna be cheap)
- may be more suitable than a P-8 for ground-surveillance missions in terms of op cost, and low- (med?) level endurance
- looking to the future, a guy in the back of a FWSAR could control armed UCAVs to do the shooting
- is a LOT more flexible than contracted King-Airs and stuff (Rear door, serious cargo capacity, more range, more avionics, is organic to CF, etc)
The probly $200+ million P-8 can still tear around chasing submarines, burning oceans of dinosaur juice (CFM56 has a SFC of 0.38 x 27,300lb x 2 = $$$), tossing missiles and sonobouys and running UAVs and stuff, which are all jobs that need to be done. But when you're just dropping in on some dodgy Spanish fishing boat dumping bilge water, or for SAR taskings, or other non-combat roles, it seems to me that a FWSAR airframe could do a comparable job for a lot cheaper. And if things go sour, the speed a P-8 brings to the table could still provide a dedicated shooter on the scene in a timely fashion.
obvious down-sides to the idea include:
- Not made in Quebec
- Not armed (maybe could accomodate some sono-bouys if needed, but would that be really useful?)
- Not many guys in the back (could add a bunch of workstations, but would be pricey)
- I'm sure people will jump in with others
I have no beef with the P-8, but I think it'll be too obscenely expensive to be palletable to Canadian taxpayers, and we're liable to wind up with a very small fleet if we get it at all. Some MP-configured FWSAR airframes might allow us to make do with a relatively small P-8 buy.
This is just a sketchy idea I've been chewing on for a while, and thought I'd throw it on the fire.
Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? Insults?
The floor is open...
I don't think that the P-8 buy could be any smaller than its likely to be and be sustainable anyway (presuming that it happens, of course).
Augmentation is likely to be provided by UAVs.
There are comments earlier in this thread regarding limitations of lesser aircraft.
Augmentation is likely to be provided by UAVs.
There are comments earlier in this thread regarding limitations of lesser aircraft.
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,190
- Points
- 1,040
From Strategy Page about the P-8 and a new offshout EP-3. They seem to have a different take on it.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/articles/20080227.aspx
Super Snooper
February 27, 2008: Sensor and radar technology is changing so quickly that the U.S. Air Force and Navy are having a hard time designing a replacement for their current electronic warfare (EW) aircraft. The Navy wants to replace the EW version of its P-3 reconnaissance aircraft (EP-3), while the air force has several elderly aircraft using a wide array of sensors and radars. The navy has decided that sensors have become small enough, and cheap enough, that they can load up a Boeing 737 with radar, sensors, computers, mini-UAVs and the people needed to run it all, and perform functions formerly taken care of by several different aircraft. This new Super Snooper will be the EP-8. It will mount an AESA radar for scanning the sea (or land) below in great detail. Also mounted on (actually, built in) the aircraft skin are dozens of antennas, for detecting any kind of nearby electronic emissions. The EP-8 would be used for a wider array of missions than its predecessor, the EP-3. In addition to the traditional trolling off the coast of, say, China, North Korea or Iran, to detect how the locals use their electronic devices (radars, communications, whatever), the EP-8 can also fly over combat zones seeking out cell phone, walkie-talkie or other radio use, and locating the people involved. The EP-8 carries missiles, as well as small UAVs that can be used to test enemy air defenses (which can result in a missile to take out the hostile radar).
The 737 is also being used as the P-3 replacement (the P-8As), which enters service in about three years. Although the Boeing 737 based P-8A is a two engine jet, compared to the four engine turboprop P-3, it is a more capable plane. The P8A has 23 percent more floor space than the P-3, and is larger (118 foot wingspan, versus 100 foot) and heavier (83 tons versus 61). Most other characteristics are the same. Both can stay in the air about ten hours per sortie. Speed is different. Cruise speed for the 737 is 910 kilometers an hour, versus 590 for the P-3. This makes it possible for the P-8A to get to a patrol area faster, which is a major advantage when chasing down subs spotted by sonar arrays or satellites.
However, the P-3 can carry more weapons (9 tons, versus 5.6.) This is less of a factor as the weapons (torpedoes, missiles, mines, sonobouys) are, pound for pound, more effective today and that trend continues. Both carry the same size crew, of 10-11 pilots and equipment operators. Both aircraft carry search radar and various other sensors.
The 737 has, like the P-3. been equipped with bomb hard points on the wings for torpedoes or missiles. The B-737 is a more modern design, and has been used successfully since the 1960s by commercial aviation. Navy aviators are confident that it will be as reliable as the P-3 (which was based on the Electra civilian airliner that first flew in 1954, although only 170 were built, plus 600 P-3s. About 40 Electras are still in service). The Boeing 737 first flew in 1965, and over 5,000 have been built. The P-8A will be the first 737 designed with a bomb bay and four wing racks for weapons.
The EP-8 will be fitted for aerial refueling, something the air force is not enthusiastic about. But the navy is pitching the EP-8 as a "strategic asset" (looking for critical information to fill out the "big picture" for the most senior leaders). So the air force will have to play along. The navy is adopting some air force practices, like putting many of the EP-8 crew (the sensor operators) on the ground, back in the U.S., and linked to the EP-8 via satellite. The air force has had great success doing this with their dozens of Predator UAVs, which are flown by operators stationed in the American Midwest.
The P-8 looks like it will be the last maritime reconnaissance aircraft with people aboard. In fact, there are a growing number of UAV proponents in the navy and air force who want the next generation of aircraft to be unmanned. But the UAV technology (particularly the reliability) is not quite there yet.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/articles/20080227.aspx
Super Snooper
February 27, 2008: Sensor and radar technology is changing so quickly that the U.S. Air Force and Navy are having a hard time designing a replacement for their current electronic warfare (EW) aircraft. The Navy wants to replace the EW version of its P-3 reconnaissance aircraft (EP-3), while the air force has several elderly aircraft using a wide array of sensors and radars. The navy has decided that sensors have become small enough, and cheap enough, that they can load up a Boeing 737 with radar, sensors, computers, mini-UAVs and the people needed to run it all, and perform functions formerly taken care of by several different aircraft. This new Super Snooper will be the EP-8. It will mount an AESA radar for scanning the sea (or land) below in great detail. Also mounted on (actually, built in) the aircraft skin are dozens of antennas, for detecting any kind of nearby electronic emissions. The EP-8 would be used for a wider array of missions than its predecessor, the EP-3. In addition to the traditional trolling off the coast of, say, China, North Korea or Iran, to detect how the locals use their electronic devices (radars, communications, whatever), the EP-8 can also fly over combat zones seeking out cell phone, walkie-talkie or other radio use, and locating the people involved. The EP-8 carries missiles, as well as small UAVs that can be used to test enemy air defenses (which can result in a missile to take out the hostile radar).
The 737 is also being used as the P-3 replacement (the P-8As), which enters service in about three years. Although the Boeing 737 based P-8A is a two engine jet, compared to the four engine turboprop P-3, it is a more capable plane. The P8A has 23 percent more floor space than the P-3, and is larger (118 foot wingspan, versus 100 foot) and heavier (83 tons versus 61). Most other characteristics are the same. Both can stay in the air about ten hours per sortie. Speed is different. Cruise speed for the 737 is 910 kilometers an hour, versus 590 for the P-3. This makes it possible for the P-8A to get to a patrol area faster, which is a major advantage when chasing down subs spotted by sonar arrays or satellites.
However, the P-3 can carry more weapons (9 tons, versus 5.6.) This is less of a factor as the weapons (torpedoes, missiles, mines, sonobouys) are, pound for pound, more effective today and that trend continues. Both carry the same size crew, of 10-11 pilots and equipment operators. Both aircraft carry search radar and various other sensors.
The 737 has, like the P-3. been equipped with bomb hard points on the wings for torpedoes or missiles. The B-737 is a more modern design, and has been used successfully since the 1960s by commercial aviation. Navy aviators are confident that it will be as reliable as the P-3 (which was based on the Electra civilian airliner that first flew in 1954, although only 170 were built, plus 600 P-3s. About 40 Electras are still in service). The Boeing 737 first flew in 1965, and over 5,000 have been built. The P-8A will be the first 737 designed with a bomb bay and four wing racks for weapons.
The EP-8 will be fitted for aerial refueling, something the air force is not enthusiastic about. But the navy is pitching the EP-8 as a "strategic asset" (looking for critical information to fill out the "big picture" for the most senior leaders). So the air force will have to play along. The navy is adopting some air force practices, like putting many of the EP-8 crew (the sensor operators) on the ground, back in the U.S., and linked to the EP-8 via satellite. The air force has had great success doing this with their dozens of Predator UAVs, which are flown by operators stationed in the American Midwest.
The P-8 looks like it will be the last maritime reconnaissance aircraft with people aboard. In fact, there are a growing number of UAV proponents in the navy and air force who want the next generation of aircraft to be unmanned. But the UAV technology (particularly the reliability) is not quite there yet.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Well, I don't know if it's really a new offshoot, since IIRC the MMA program was originally supposed to include the ASW, ASuW, and ISR roles in one variant from the get go. I really like the direct reference to mini-UAVs. I wonder how mini they're talking about? Cruise missile? Firebee sized? (Sonobouy-sized?)
I think the P-8 is the best Aurora replacement we can get (they had me sold at '73-'...), but it's not like there are a whole of other choices out there (Nimrod 2000s? Il-38s? blimps?). The per-unit pricetag is just going to make it a difficult sell here.
If you look in the opposite direction from FWSAR, I think there was also supposed to be an AEW&C -style variant of the P-8 for the USN at one point in time. This doesn't seem to have materialized yet, but a P-8 purchase might make it more economically feasible for Canada to purchase/operate something like a Wedgetail, or Turkey's new 737 variant. This should allow the CF to get the job done with fewer airframes (and have new capabilties too), but again, unit purchase cost is brutal.
While we're talking the about timeframe of an Aurora replacement, we also talking about the timeframe for replacing a lot of other airframes too. When the CF-18 gets replaced, it obviously won't be one-for-one, but a 737 with some big ugly stand-off missiles could be better to have than a fast jet in some scenarios anyways. Especially if that scenario is happening a long ways away (places like north of 60).
What else can you squeeze out of this airframe? The more stuff it can do, the easier it is to justify buying it. And we are liable to be stuck with them for most of my lifetime.
And what is a feasible number of P-8s? 10?
I think the P-8 is the best Aurora replacement we can get (they had me sold at '73-'...), but it's not like there are a whole of other choices out there (Nimrod 2000s? Il-38s? blimps?). The per-unit pricetag is just going to make it a difficult sell here.
If you look in the opposite direction from FWSAR, I think there was also supposed to be an AEW&C -style variant of the P-8 for the USN at one point in time. This doesn't seem to have materialized yet, but a P-8 purchase might make it more economically feasible for Canada to purchase/operate something like a Wedgetail, or Turkey's new 737 variant. This should allow the CF to get the job done with fewer airframes (and have new capabilties too), but again, unit purchase cost is brutal.
While we're talking the about timeframe of an Aurora replacement, we also talking about the timeframe for replacing a lot of other airframes too. When the CF-18 gets replaced, it obviously won't be one-for-one, but a 737 with some big ugly stand-off missiles could be better to have than a fast jet in some scenarios anyways. Especially if that scenario is happening a long ways away (places like north of 60).
What else can you squeeze out of this airframe? The more stuff it can do, the easier it is to justify buying it. And we are liable to be stuck with them for most of my lifetime.
And what is a feasible number of P-8s? 10?
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Spencer100 said:
Thanks for the link. Great article.
Things are "a-changing". Apparently so fast the decision makers are having trouble coming up with the right combination
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
FoverF said:
FoverF,
Great post.
First, about the MMA being multi-mission capable, all of the things you listed are already capabilities that are employed on the Aurora, so nothing new here. The Aurora is already a MMA, we are just labeling the new airframe with a catchy name in an attempt to sell the idea (CMA - Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft). CP-140 Block III will enhance those existing capabilities a lot but CMA will stretch them even more. One capability that will likely come on line with Block III and certainly would be online with MMA is a AGS capability, which is a ground surveillance capablity, like J-STARS in the states. Regarding CMA having long range stand-off land attack missiles, giddy-up; let's buy some! The Aurora has had this capability as an unfunded project since about '98 or so, and it almost saw the light of day in about 2002. Just after Kosovo, USN P-3s equipped with SLAM-ER were called the most capable attack asset by the air component commander. A lot of our leadership wanted our CP-140s to have the capability, but we were broke.
As for buying jets with an a AEW capability, if we chose the P8 and the WEDGETAIL (both B737 airframes), the benefit would be a single training establishment for pilots, common heavy maintenance, and common supply systems on a proven airframe.
Regarding how many airframes: it would be very unrealistic of me to state a number based on my rather sketchy knowledge of the P-8 and its capabilities. I think we should buy at least 18 because we have a three ocean country and because I still think we will need to be able to deploy a det that can be self-sustaining. But that figure is just a guess. As for WEDGETAIL, we currently always deploy our F-18s as part of a coalition with organic Alliance AEW assets. But having WEDGETAIL would give us the capability to deploy our fighters on our own. As an air force and as a nation, we have to ask ourselves if this is ever a realistic option and whether the cost is worth paying. One really good benefit would be a true over the horizon capability for the north, and as a training vehicle for our F-18 guys. If we decided to get these, we would need about 7 for a true deployable capability, and we could get by with as little as four if it was just for training. That would mean a fleet of 22-25 B737s. What would that cost, $18 Billion? Ain't gonna happen.
We will probably get about 6 or 8, maybe 10 P-8s and a bunch of UAVs.
Bart
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Which of course brings us to the elephant in the Aurora-replacement room, the UAVs.
Canada's going to need a $$ surveillance UAV, and the Navy's going to want one for it's ships.
The naval UAV topic is a thread unto itself, but aviation support to the navy is a major portion of what we're talking about. It's definitely far enough outside my lane that I won't stay here long, but naval UAVs are crucial to the discussion. A Cyclone is about all the CPF (or probably SCSC or DDH or whatever is supposedly in the pipeline), can handle, and doesn't leave much room in the hangar for a big UAV detachment. The JSSs will be able to carry a substantial UAV detachment, and will accompany most task groups, but I expect the navy wants a UAV that all of it' s surface combatants (and maybe even the MCDV, Orca, and CG) can carry.
In short, I don't really know what the navy is looking for, but I expect that ship-borne UAVs should be in place to carry a good deal of the Aurora's present burden.
One option could see a few GlobalHawks (CanadaHawks?), and whatever the navy wants on it's surface combatants, supporting the P-8. We'd have a long-endurance UAV that can go to the arctic, hang around for a really long time, and actually FIND stuff if it's there (lots of gas, big radar, big airframe). The downside is that we'd need a decent number of GlobalHawks to not be an orphan fleet, and they are not cheap birds (~$100 million each, Germany's EuroHawks were E86 million to build). We would also be replacing the Aurora with more airframes than we're retiring (although they should all be cheaper than the Aurora to operate), with a whole lot of training and infrastructure costs to go along with them, which might make it more economical just to buy a few more P-8s.
Another option is augmenting the P-8 with Firebee-style drones (carried by the P-8s). They are cheap, reliable, can be armed themselves, and are the most mature UCAV technology out there. Nowhere near the infrastructure and operating costs associated with the GlobalHawk, and a small fraction of the purchase costs too. Their expendable nature means that their cost will add up handsomely in the long run, but there's no free lunches with any Aurora replacement options.
Canada's going to need a $$ surveillance UAV, and the Navy's going to want one for it's ships.
The naval UAV topic is a thread unto itself, but aviation support to the navy is a major portion of what we're talking about. It's definitely far enough outside my lane that I won't stay here long, but naval UAVs are crucial to the discussion. A Cyclone is about all the CPF (or probably SCSC or DDH or whatever is supposedly in the pipeline), can handle, and doesn't leave much room in the hangar for a big UAV detachment. The JSSs will be able to carry a substantial UAV detachment, and will accompany most task groups, but I expect the navy wants a UAV that all of it' s surface combatants (and maybe even the MCDV, Orca, and CG) can carry.
In short, I don't really know what the navy is looking for, but I expect that ship-borne UAVs should be in place to carry a good deal of the Aurora's present burden.
One option could see a few GlobalHawks (CanadaHawks?), and whatever the navy wants on it's surface combatants, supporting the P-8. We'd have a long-endurance UAV that can go to the arctic, hang around for a really long time, and actually FIND stuff if it's there (lots of gas, big radar, big airframe). The downside is that we'd need a decent number of GlobalHawks to not be an orphan fleet, and they are not cheap birds (~$100 million each, Germany's EuroHawks were E86 million to build). We would also be replacing the Aurora with more airframes than we're retiring (although they should all be cheaper than the Aurora to operate), with a whole lot of training and infrastructure costs to go along with them, which might make it more economical just to buy a few more P-8s.
Another option is augmenting the P-8 with Firebee-style drones (carried by the P-8s). They are cheap, reliable, can be armed themselves, and are the most mature UCAV technology out there. Nowhere near the infrastructure and operating costs associated with the GlobalHawk, and a small fraction of the purchase costs too. Their expendable nature means that their cost will add up handsomely in the long run, but there's no free lunches with any Aurora replacement options.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
As an after-thought:
GlobalHawks might be more affordable/useful as a joint (and I mean REALLY joint) federally-owned, and contractor-operated, asset. Cost and user time could be shared by Environment Canada, RCMP, Customs & Revenue, Coast Guard, AETE, CSA (NSS? USCG? Industry? CRTC?), and any other federal agency or paying customer.
The only major addition to the CF inventory would be the CF-specific mission equipment modules (a couple million bucks each tho) and maybe some (USAF-trained) operators. But you would probably just use the civy pilots for the most part, since it would be cheaper, and there's no need for unlimited liability. This could see a few birds tasked to the CF at all times, while retaining a pay-as-you-go surge capability of more airframes than the CF would otherwise be able to afford.
Just an idea.
(isn't this sorta how satellite resources are distributed?)
GlobalHawks might be more affordable/useful as a joint (and I mean REALLY joint) federally-owned, and contractor-operated, asset. Cost and user time could be shared by Environment Canada, RCMP, Customs & Revenue, Coast Guard, AETE, CSA (NSS? USCG? Industry? CRTC?), and any other federal agency or paying customer.
The only major addition to the CF inventory would be the CF-specific mission equipment modules (a couple million bucks each tho) and maybe some (USAF-trained) operators. But you would probably just use the civy pilots for the most part, since it would be cheaper, and there's no need for unlimited liability. This could see a few birds tasked to the CF at all times, while retaining a pay-as-you-go surge capability of more airframes than the CF would otherwise be able to afford.
Just an idea.
(isn't this sorta how satellite resources are distributed?)
FoverF and bartbandyrfc are correct on the cost factor the P-8,
I had suggested that there is a market for a medium size plan MPA Base CRJ 900/ 1000 in Canada and the world. The idea was shot down very quickly.
some was development cost,
had to be compatible with the US,
No one would buy the plane
weapons and senors on the plane
support for the ground troops. :
etc.
Support for the ground troop would better served but a fleet of Reapers UAV that will be purchased thanks to the Manely report. Reaper can do the job better than the upgraded CP140 and P-8 at super large fraction of cost in operation and maintenance cost alone. The reaper is less of a target and more stealthy, does not put pilot and sensor personel lives at risk.
Some say Astor project for the UK bases on the Global Express from Bombardier as late and over due. The main problem of the project is not the plane. The radar is still being tweaked. However the plane and radar do work very well. The Global hawk had the some problems too and even had a crash or two. The difference is that the US government is using the UAV and fixing the problems the same time because there is a need for it in the war it is fighting.
The thing is people said with Boeing and Airbus producing the 737 and 320 there was no need to the regional aircraft like the CRJs.
The CRJ are all over and made Bombardier the 3rd largest airplane maker. Not bad for a market that was not there!
Now once again what is in the harm of building a test plane. Some customer could be smaller nations in the world like the option besides us are Norway, Denmark , Greece, Turkey, Israel and etc..
As for for the the AEW 737 i read in Aviation weekly that he plane is still having major problem and is over budget. However in the same article the Israel has taken delivery of it conformal CAEW G550 aircraft.
The planes CAEW system is highly automated needing less personal to operate it. Plus the large radar arrays and attach side of the plane has the cabling running though a window so the plane would save time on development, building and re-certification costs for the project.
There is no reason Bombardier and IAI of Israel can not do the same for the CRJ 900/ 1000 for Canada.
Some time think outside the box works. Israel has proved it in the form of technology, sensor and weapons to the point that large US and European firm buy the rights to equipment and repackage them and sell it abroad.
Some equipment:
UAV
ATM
armour
radar
targeting equipment
conformal fuel tanks
etc.
a lesson could be learned here.
I had suggested that there is a market for a medium size plan MPA Base CRJ 900/ 1000 in Canada and the world. The idea was shot down very quickly.
some was development cost,
had to be compatible with the US,
No one would buy the plane
weapons and senors on the plane
support for the ground troops. :
etc.
Support for the ground troop would better served but a fleet of Reapers UAV that will be purchased thanks to the Manely report. Reaper can do the job better than the upgraded CP140 and P-8 at super large fraction of cost in operation and maintenance cost alone. The reaper is less of a target and more stealthy, does not put pilot and sensor personel lives at risk.
Some say Astor project for the UK bases on the Global Express from Bombardier as late and over due. The main problem of the project is not the plane. The radar is still being tweaked. However the plane and radar do work very well. The Global hawk had the some problems too and even had a crash or two. The difference is that the US government is using the UAV and fixing the problems the same time because there is a need for it in the war it is fighting.
The thing is people said with Boeing and Airbus producing the 737 and 320 there was no need to the regional aircraft like the CRJs.
The CRJ are all over and made Bombardier the 3rd largest airplane maker. Not bad for a market that was not there!
Now once again what is in the harm of building a test plane. Some customer could be smaller nations in the world like the option besides us are Norway, Denmark , Greece, Turkey, Israel and etc..
As for for the the AEW 737 i read in Aviation weekly that he plane is still having major problem and is over budget. However in the same article the Israel has taken delivery of it conformal CAEW G550 aircraft.
The planes CAEW system is highly automated needing less personal to operate it. Plus the large radar arrays and attach side of the plane has the cabling running though a window so the plane would save time on development, building and re-certification costs for the project.
There is no reason Bombardier and IAI of Israel can not do the same for the CRJ 900/ 1000 for Canada.
Some time think outside the box works. Israel has proved it in the form of technology, sensor and weapons to the point that large US and European firm buy the rights to equipment and repackage them and sell it abroad.
Some equipment:
UAV
ATM
armour
radar
targeting equipment
conformal fuel tanks
etc.
a lesson could be learned here.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
WPA:
You should maybe look at some of the numbers for the ASTOR program before you suggest it as a cheaper alternative to the P-8
The total program cost, to develop and deliver FIVE airframes, was around $2 Billion ("just over 1 bn pounds")
Flug-Revue quotes an airframe production cost of $131 million (68.6 million pounds) per airframe. So a quick and dirty calculation for the infrastructure and development costs (but mostly development) comes to around $1.35 billion dollars. That's the harm in building a prototype. Similarly, when Germany developed the mission equipment package for their GlobalHawks, the cost was around three quarters of a billion dollars, just for a modular pallet that fits into an existing and unmodified airframe. And neither of these a/c have any kind of armament, sono-bouys, MAD gear, or any of the other stuff that you need to kill submarines.
And while I haven't looked too deep for the delivered program costs of the Heyl Havir G550 CAEW, the initial contract specified a cost of about $120 million per airframe, and this was in 2003 while it was still a paper airplane (I guarantee you it didn't get any cheaper since then).
So we'd be paying enormous development costs to develop an MPA version of the CRJ (while Boeing and the USN are going to pay for the development cost of the P-8 for us), to get airframes that are shorter ranged, unarmed, less capable, but probably just as expensive to purchase.
And we STILL need to buy something that can KILL SUBMARINES.
www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRASTOR.htm
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/raf/listings/l0025.html
http://www.gulfstream.com/news/releases/2003/082803.html
You should maybe look at some of the numbers for the ASTOR program before you suggest it as a cheaper alternative to the P-8
The total program cost, to develop and deliver FIVE airframes, was around $2 Billion ("just over 1 bn pounds")
Flug-Revue quotes an airframe production cost of $131 million (68.6 million pounds) per airframe. So a quick and dirty calculation for the infrastructure and development costs (but mostly development) comes to around $1.35 billion dollars. That's the harm in building a prototype. Similarly, when Germany developed the mission equipment package for their GlobalHawks, the cost was around three quarters of a billion dollars, just for a modular pallet that fits into an existing and unmodified airframe. And neither of these a/c have any kind of armament, sono-bouys, MAD gear, or any of the other stuff that you need to kill submarines.
And while I haven't looked too deep for the delivered program costs of the Heyl Havir G550 CAEW, the initial contract specified a cost of about $120 million per airframe, and this was in 2003 while it was still a paper airplane (I guarantee you it didn't get any cheaper since then).
So we'd be paying enormous development costs to develop an MPA version of the CRJ (while Boeing and the USN are going to pay for the development cost of the P-8 for us), to get airframes that are shorter ranged, unarmed, less capable, but probably just as expensive to purchase.
And we STILL need to buy something that can KILL SUBMARINES.
www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRASTOR.htm
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/raf/listings/l0025.html
http://www.gulfstream.com/news/releases/2003/082803.html
Similar threads
