Aviator:
Nobody is doubting your credentials, least of all me. Equally nobody will confuse me with an expert. As I have often noted in the past my "bright ideas" usually indicate that I am a "dollar short and a day late" in the ideas sweepstakes. And this current case seems to be no exception......
As I have no doubt you, Zoomie and G2G are aware, the USCG pipped me at the post back in August of 2010 when they equipped their EADS CN-235 (HC-144A Ocean Sentry) with a Mission Support Pallet that supported the Ocean Eye AN/APS-143C(V)3 as well as a SAFIRE EO/IR turret - (I believe your CP-140 is similarly equipped - in addition to a number of other systems - and that the CH-148 will also be similarly equipped although perhaps with the AN/APS-143B(V)3). All of this while endeavouriing to maintain the multi-role capabilities of the aircraft itself:
The Ocean Sentry plays a crucial role in Coast Guard aviation missions that include maritime patrol, intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance, cargo and personnel transport, and disaster relief.
Read more: http://www.asdnews.com/news/29963/EADS_awarded_USCG_contract_for_HC-144A_Maritime_Patrol_Aircraft.htm#ixzz1OQQZjqFg
Now I understand the dogfight going on between EADS and Alenia (with Bombardier and Viking on the outside looking in) so I make no comment on which airframe is best suited for which task and what compromises are likely to be necessary and possible.
My interest is simply in understanding how best we can deploy sensors as broadly as possible so that they can be tactically, operationally and strategically useful.
The fact that these types of radars (if I include the Lynx AN/APY-8 as a similar capability) are being hung from Auroras, Predators, King Airs, Fire Scouts and many other rotary and fixed wing aircraft - not to mention LTAs - suggests strongly to me that:
a) they are a mature capability
b) they are a valuable capability
c) they are a cost-effective capability
d) they do not impose a significant weight/aerodynamic penalty.
Having said that some other questions come to mind:
Would it be necessary to add a SENSO/AESOP to every FWSAR crew? How about a TACCO?
On the other hand could the sensors be operated remotely by ground personnel as they are employed when used with UAVs?
The ASTOR/Global Express programme seems to use a hybrid mix that minimizes the personnel carried on board.
Finally, with respect to the value of a platform with capabilities less than those of the Aurora, and ignoring Provincial Airlines MPA King Airs with their AN/APS 504(V)5 there is this (from Wikipedia - sorry):
CP-140A Arcturus
Lacking the expensive, heavy and sensitive anti-submarine warfare as well as the anti-surface warfare fittings of the CP-140 Aurora, the Arcturus was more fuel efficient and was used for crew training duties (such as touch-and-go landing practice), general maritime surface reconnaissance (detecting drug operations, smuggling of illegal immigrants, fisheries protection patrols, pollution monitoring, etc.), search-and-rescue assistance and Arctic sovereignty patrols. The Arcturus did possess a superior AN/APS-507 surface search radar, incorporating modern functions such as track-while-scan that the Aurora's AN/APS-506 radar lacks but the Acturus did not have an integrated mission computer, or mission systems. It did, however, maintain the same military communications suite as the CP-140 Aurora.[citation needed]
Why would similarly equipped FWSAR candidates not be equally useful both if deployed below 60 and in support of sovereignty operations in the Arctic.
As to the concern that aircraft on standing patrols would not be available for SAR duties, might that not be alleviated by the AAR capability and ensuring that at each deployment base there are sufficient aircraft to ensure a Quick Reaction aircraft is on the runway while the patrolling AC is in the air? In fact, with a suitable sensor equipped aircraft in the air (and a SARtech Tm on board) might that not reduce the time to locate the target in trouble?
Cheers.
