P-8 Poseidon

[George Wallace]

.......  I'm just not sure that I agree with your position on the availabilty of commercial satellites to meet our control segment needs- I don't thnk that they are always in the right orbits for us, that we can get all of dedicated bandwidth we need at a price that we can live with and that it would be a secure enough set up. 

Agreed.  Availability of satellites is a concern.  This isn't Hollywood where there is always a 'bird' over the target.  Costs are also very prohibitive.  Did anyone mention the "Proprietary Factor"?  Would the "Owner" (USA) permit full access to the technology.

I also think that the support personnel bill (Comm techs, Int Ops, etc) to make this work properly has always been under- estimated. 

Even with manned flight, there is a large support network of Int Ops, Photo Techs, analysts, etc. to take/download the data from the A/C and decipher what was collected.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I have been watching Radarsat 1 & 2 data for use in our business, for a swath of data in a resolution useful for us we are looking at $1800 per request last time I looked. for that kind of money there are not many sites in Canada I can't visit personally to carry out an inspection and get better information. It's getting better, but not there yet.

Maybe we can buy some P8's and rent them with crews to cover the UK waters as well?  :nod:

 

[MarkOttawa]

CDN Aviator:

Mark (and others) seem to think that flying over the ocean and identifying merchant vessels is the only thing the Aurora does......hence why "civillian patrol" is the common cry of the ignorant.

I am not that ignorant.  This is what I think.  The Air Force’s fleet of Aurora maritime patrol aircraft is being reduced from 18 to 10.  Those aircraft also do considerable non-military work.  To reduce such demands on them, as the Aurora fleet shrinks, why not expand and centralize the government’s current fleet of civilian maritime patrol aircraft, mainly used for pollution detection and fisheries enforcement?  As far as I can determine there are seven planes, four Bombardiers owned and operated by Transport Canada,
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/backgrounders-b04-m126e-1342.htm
and three King Airs leased by Fisheries and Oceans.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/back-fiche/2009/hq-ac27a-eng.htm

Surely a few more such aircraft would be very helpful for general maritime surveillance, including such roles as law enforcement, migrant detection, vessel identification, and sovereignty patrols in the Arctic.  Transport Canada could well operate such a fleet on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Coast Guard, Environment Canada, CBSA/RCMP, CF as required, and others.

A contract actually worth giving to Bombardier!  After a suitable competition of course.

More on Bombardiers doing that sort of work here:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/80150/post-1013266.html#msg1013266

As for ship identification in waters off Canada in particular, I merely questioned whether whatever the F-35's special capabilities are in that regard should be a serious factor in whether or not we acquire the aircraft.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

And what would you put on those hard points ? Theres a reason our torps are in a heat-controlled weapons bay. Arming an ATR-72 might work for the Chilean Navy but they dont have to operate in sub...sub...sub zero weather.

They're the same fish that a Sea Thing carries, and are in Mk 32 tubes. It gets pretty cold in those tubes, and presumably being strapped to a helo. And the Northern Atlantic/Pacific is normally kinda cold once the fish get dropped in it.

Although the TI would have a fit if you treated a Mk 48 the same way that people routinely treat a Mk 46, so maybe the helo/skimmer weapons techs have it wrong....

Of course. But that is irrelevant to what i said. Mark (and others) seem to think that flying over the ocean and identifying merchant vessels is the only thing the Aurora does......hence why "civillian patrol" is the common cry of the ignorant.

Could civilian aircraft take over whatever domestic patrol functions the Arcturus was/is used for?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Drunknsubmrnr-

Cold is only part of the issue (a hypothetical DASH-8 MPA may experience temps as low as -50C on a transit at FL250- I'm pretty sure a Mk46 is not rated to that). The other issue is icing.  I can assure you Sea Kings never fly in icing conditions, so externally weapons never get exposed to that.  In the Canadian AOR, icing can be problem in almost any month of the year.  External hardpoints are not good things in icing conditions.

Generally speaking, it is better to carry your stores internally.  They last longer and work when you need them to, not to mention you eliminate parasite drag.

Civilian patrol aircraft may have their place in the tool box, but the DASH-8 MPA proposal is asinine for Canada.  No version of it has the legs that need.  Bad idea.

 

[Zoomie]

Surely a few more such aircraft would be very helpful for general maritime surveillance, including such roles as law enforcement, migrant detection, vessel identification, and sovereignty patrols in the Arctic. 

I'm all for this - I need a place to go in 8 years when I get my pension.  Beats droning around flying a bus.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

As far as I can determine there are seven planes, four Bombardiers owned and operated by Transport Canada, and three King Airs leased by Fisheries and Oceans.

Didn't one of these bodies just recently ground their aircraft? I thought I caught a tail end of the story on the news awhile back.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Ok thanks. The Mk 32 tubes sometimes get iced up, but I've never heard of any weapons actually fired from them under icing conditions. IIRC ASROC had an anti-icing heater to prevent that sort of thing.

What did the Trackers do? Would that sort of thing be valuable, or is it a solution looking for a problem?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Trackers carried their weapons in a bomb bay as well.

 

[aesop081]

They're the same fish that a Sea Thing carries, and are in Mk 32 tubes. It gets pretty cold in those tubes, and presumably being strapped to a helo. And the Northern Atlantic/Pacific is normally kinda cold once the fish get dropped in it.

Its not like i'm new at this, i know my weapons. The CP-140 has a heated bomb bay and theres a reason for it. MPAs take weapons into environments that helos dont. Yes those water are pretty cold, but not like 30k feet is cold......

Could civilian aircraft take over whatever domestic patrol functions the Arcturus was/is used for?

The Arcturus are gone. We already have a civillian aerial surveillance program. This has to do with an Aurora replacement how ?

 

[NavyShooter]

I just had a little read of this thread, and figured I'd toss in my .02 on the LO side (realizing that we're moving from that to other points of discussion, but hey...)

Anyhow, most targets that would need to be identified at sea would be civilian ships.

Those civilian ships would carry civilian radars, and mostly surface search radars.  Noteable NOT air search radars.

If we're trying to do a sneak and peek on them, a low/slow flying helo or MPA may actually show up on their surface search radar.  Which means the element of surprise may be lost.

If you send in a Low Observable fighter in to have a peek, it will be far less likely to appear on their surface search radar, and due to the speed, may actually be filtered out.

The other side of that is that if we're sending in aircraft to attempt to ID a possible military contact, which do you think has a higher probability to succeed, AND SURVIVE....an MPA, Helo, or a LO Fighter??

There.  I'll jump back into my lane, but reading 4 pages of infighting got the above idea stewing in my head.  Sorry to re-ignite the potential flames...

NS

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The Arcturus are gone. We already have a civillian aerial surveillance program. This has to do with an Aurora replacement how ?

I thought we could supplement whatever the Aurora replacement is with something like a civilian operated Arcturus. That way you could concentrate the Aurora replacements on whatever it is that you do that civilians can't. If that's not going to work then I guess we'll need a lot more Aurora replacements.

If you send in a Low Observable fighter in to have a peek, it will be far less likely to appear on their surface search radar, and due to the speed, may actually be filtered out.

If you send in an LO anything, it's still probably going to be detected before it closes enough to ID the target. LO is irrelevant in this specific situation. There is no sneaking up on the target to identify it.

 

[aesop081]

I thought we could supplement whatever the Aurora replacement is with something like a civilian operated Arcturus.

We already have that arrangement. Transport Canada MART and PAL do regular monitoring for the more "civillian enforcement" type missions at home. The 18 CP-140 Auroras handle the military missions and assist OGDs with missions where the 140s capability is the only suitable choice.

 

[thunderchild]

65 F-35's for AD missions, foreign deployment (when necessary), coastal patrols, maintenance and training.  when the wings start cracking from over use and maintenance costs go through the roof what do you plan to do when the TU-160's keep flying through our airspace or there are Oscar ssn's operating  in the Hudson strait? Bit out there I know but is that worth the risk.  We need the P-8, is there a suitable aircraft we could use to supplement it's operations a less cost?  Is this a feasable idea?

 

[aesop081]

or there are Oscar ssn's operating  in the Hudson strait?

What does that have to do with the F-35 ?

Not a single person said the F-35 could be used to track a submarine.

We need the P-8,

No, we need a long-range MRPA replacement. Those 2 things are not mutualy inclusive.

is there a suitable aircraft we could use to supplement it's operations a less cost?  Is this a feasable idea?

Suplement what ? What is it that our LRP fleet does that needs to be supplemented by another aircraft ? What is it thats not being done now that needs an additional aircraft type ?

 

[Zoomie]

I heard we bought too many J-Hercs and they are going to retro-fit a couple for LRPA - /stir

 

[George Wallace]

We already have that arrangement. Transport Canada MART and PAL do regular monitoring for the more "civillian enforcement" type missions at home. The 18 CP-140 Auroras handle the military missions and assist OGDs with missions where the 140s capability is the only suitable choice.

Are you sure?  Only last week Transport Canada announced it was selling off its two planes.

 

[George Wallace]

If you send in an LO anything, it's still probably going to be detected before it closes enough to ID the target. LO is irrelevant in this specific situation. There is no sneaking up on the target to identify it.

I am not a pilot, nor am I a radar operator, but even I am familiar with how effective "Flying in the Grass" is for attacking aircraft.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

even I am familiar with how effective "Flying in the Grass" is for attacking aircraft.

It is effective. Flying below the radar horizon will get any type of aircraft fairly close without being detected. When they pop over the ships radar horizon, they'll probably be within detection range regardless of their RCS.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

'Probably' and 'Will be' are two very different things. You can either state they absolutely will be detected or you can say they might be. Two very different things, IMHO.