CP-140 Aurora

[Loachman]

Finally, someone gets it.

Loachman, take a bow.

I've had it for decades, but thanks.

 

[aesop081]

One of the problems with these mixed-fleet proposals is that we need a certain minimum number of aircraft in order to do the full-blown military mission in times of conflict. For the Aurora, this was detecting, tracking, and potentially attacking Godless Communist Horde submarines during the Cold War and possible warmer follow-on.

When not engaged in their primary role, such aircraft can conduct lesser missions, such as fishery patrols and pollution violations.

Aircraft designed purely for those lesser missions cannot, however, detect, track, and kill GCH submarines when the need arises - and should conflict flare up, nobody cares about fish and pollution anymore.

One therefore ends up with two fleets and a higher overall cost, as one still needs that certain minimum number of fully-capable aircraft, now under-employed in peacetime, and has a bunch of unnecessary lesser aircraft buzzing around, too.

There is a big difference between cost-effectiveness and operational effectiveness and, in any military organization, the latter is, and has to be, trump.

......And there was much celebration because at least one person understands.

Mark,

The Auroras have already received an improved navigation system, global positioning systems and better radar under the first two phases of the refurbishment.

No they have not.  I dont know where this comes from but there is no new radar installed on the CP-140.

 

[aesop081]

But it might be fine for the civilian missions the Auroras fly, mainly in support of the Canadian Coast Guard, such as fisheries patrol.

Fisheries patrols are done for DFO, not the Coast Guard. Dedicated fisheries patrols are done within the canadian EEZ and are done by PAL with DFO officers on board.

 

[observor 69]

It's the opposition's job to hammer the government in power over what it is they aren't doing.... Same aas the conservatives did before.... That's their job... no matter how self serving it might appear to be.  When you're in the opposition's seat, money is no object.

That would be "constructive, reasoned " criticism leading to the development of the best thought out policy.
Ya I know I'm dreaming. 

 

[Haletown]

so if I understand what Coderre is doing under the guise of ""constructive, reasoned " criticism", he is cherry picking bits of data, ignoring any facts that don't support his intentions and spinning a tall tale just so he can attempt to convince voters  in the IMP riding that they should vote Liberal because the nasty government wants to take their jobs (their entitlements?) away.

Think I  get it now.

 

[Jammer]

....and so begins the...wait for it...."The Poseidon Adventure"....
(I slay me.)

 

[MarkOttawa]

CDN Aviator: Of course the fisheries patrols are in support of DFO.  Sorry for the mistake, I was confusing with the CCG ships doing the surface fisheries patrol carrying (armed) Fishery Officers.  Just to repeat for others: my point--get the Air Force out of most civilian maritime patrol business, and get them some new planes so they can concentrate on the military side and do it better.  Meanwhile create a single, multi-role civilian fleet (of the size required) that is also more capable.  And the Q Series seems well suited for the civil role--business for Bombardier which the politicos like--whereas its Astor would not be suitable for the broad range of Air Force patrol needs.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

This looks hopeful (except for the Astor bit at the end):
http://thechronicleherald.ca/print_article.html?story=997479

There are good arguments for replacing the Aurora maritime patrol planes, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Monday, which suggests the government may not go ahead with plans to refurbish the planes in Nova Scotia.

The government won’t announce its decision until a week from today, but Mr. MacKay’s comments leave little doubt he is leaning toward buying new planes rather than spending more money on the 18 Auroras, 14 of which are based at 14 Wing Greenwood.

"Would you feel safe getting in a 40-year-old car driving at high speed down the Trans-Canada Highway?" he said. "These pilots have to get in this equipment, Sea Kings and Auroras, and fly out over the North Atlantic in February in some pretty difficult weather conditions. So we need to ensure that we have proper, safe and efficient equipment."

At a news conference in Halifax on Monday morning, Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre attacked Mr. MacKay for considering replacing the Auroras, saying the decision would put 2,000 jobs at risk.

"Those planes have a capacity to be perfect up to 2025," Mr. Coderre said. "If we are replacing them . . . and we’re stalling those other (upgrades), you will have kind of a gap in some years when Canada won’t be able to fulfil its own military duty."..

According to The Canadian Press, the military is considering two aircraft to replace the Auroras: Boeing’s P-8 Poseidon and Bombardier’s Astor. If the military were to buy the Bombardier plane rather than refurbish the Auroras, that could mean jobs going to Quebec instead of Nova Scotia. Mr. MacKay said it would be surprising if Mr. Coderre opposed that [emphasis added].

"When’s the last time a Quebec MP went down to Atlantic Canada to argue for more jobs in the aerospace industry?" he said.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Loachman]

Just to repeat for others: my point--get the Air Force out of most civilian maritime patrol business, and get them some new planes so they can concentrate on the military side and do it better.

I would suspect that (as I said in an earlier post), if we buy a big enough fleet of aircraft suitable  - both in terms of fleet size and composition - for the military role then there would be ample to do the leftover business for which you're proposing to buy this second, civilian, fleet until war breaks out. Why buy two fleets when one would suffice? Do we really need to waste more money on unnecessary stuff?

Besides, I do not know if we want to get out of these lesser tasks. We do a number of non-military missions with the Griffon fleet too, including counter-drug work in support of the RCMP, and this adds variety while also giving training value. This is one of the things that makes us so flexible. If you do split the roles, you'll end up with a bunch of Maritime Patrol guys boring themselves to death sitting around doing nothing or flying the same old routine training missions over, and over, and over, and over again. Doing a real mission, even a simple one, adds a little spice. We, for example, could plan an airmobile activity and go out and fly it with nobody in the back. We'd get training value out of it, and put Xs in all of the necessary boxes, but it's so much more satisfying and worthwhile if we've got a few full loads of Infantry. CDN Aviator and his brethren can confirm or deny that it works this way for them.

Meanwhile create a single, multi-role civilian fleet (of the size required) that is also more capable.

More capable than a modern Aurora replacement? I don't think that that's either likely nor necessary.

I cannot understand why you persist with what seems clearly illogical to me. Those that perform this role have spoken. Their thoughts, ideas, and comments are good enough for me. I'm not going to try and tell them that they're wrong.

 

[Loachman]

"Would you feel safe getting in a 40-year-old car driving at high speed down the Trans-Canada Highway?" he said. "These pilots have to get in this equipment, Sea Kings and Auroras, and fly out over the North Atlantic in February in some pretty difficult weather conditions. So we need to ensure that we have proper, safe and efficient equipment."

Mr MacKay obviously gets it.

"At a news conference in Halifax on Monday morning, Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre attacked Mr. MacKay for considering replacing the Auroras, saying the decision would put 2,000 jobs at risk."

Coderre obviously does not. He would rather put crews's lives and their mission at risk rather than some jobs, of which his own is indubitably his greatest concern.

"Those planes have a capacity to be perfect up to 2025," Mr. Coderre said.

"Perfect". Right. Perfect what?

"If we are replacing them . . . and we’re stalling those other (upgrades), you will have kind of a gap in some years when Canada won’t be able to fulfil its own military duty."..

Like all of the other gaps courtesy of the former government.

"When’s the last time a Quebec MP went down to Atlantic Canada to argue for more jobs in the aerospace industry?" he said.

I suspect that Mr MacKay is just having a little fun at Coderre's expense with his ASTOR suggestion.

 

[Haletown]

""When’s the last time a Quebec MP went down to Atlantic Canada to argue for more jobs in the aerospace industry?" he said.

[size=10pt]Ouch !!  [/size]

Wonder if Mr Coderre could be convinced to go to the UK and provide his old aircraft advice to the RAF over what to do with the Nimrods.

Those old frames just killed one crew.

 

[Bulls Eye]

I would suspect that (as I said in an earlier post), if we buy a big enough fleet of aircraft suitable  - both in terms of fleet size and composition - for the military role then there would be ample to do the leftover business for which you're proposing to buy this second, civilian, fleet until war breaks out. Why buy two fleets when one would suffice? Do we really need to waste more money on unnecessary stuff?

The unnecessary stuff is necessary for domestic maritime law enforcement because it is simply not cost-effective to utilize a military asset for a mission that otherwise can be executed by a non-military asset.

 

[prom]

The unnecessary stuff is necessary for domestic maritime law enforcement because it is simply not cost-effective to utilize a military asset for a mission that otherwise can be executed by a non-military asset.

Just to make sure I am reading your idea correctly; You suggest 1 CF Fleet of MPA's as well as another civillian fleet controled by or contracted by a seperate goverment dept. If that is the case wouldnt it be more expensive to maintain both fleets and the resulting training and salaries for the additional fleet? If you look at the costs, I thought that it would be cheaper to simply procure and train crews for the AF as well as a modern aircraft of a number suitable to do both jobs as they stand, or expand in the future. Or as other posters have said that UAV's with proper equipment load outs could be used to augment the MPA Fleet. I know it is a dual fleet, howerver the difference is that it is not a civillian fleet. That is, in a time of war it can be used quickly used with little modification or training, where as the civillian fleet would/could need major modifications ,not to mention trained crews, that can use the airframe in the new threat enviroment.

I've said before this is all out of my lane, but it just dont make sence to matain both a mil. and a civ. patrol fleet. Reserve role perhaps?

 

[Kirkhill]

I think, to copy from Edward, that the correct answer is "It depends". 

It depends the weight, size and cost of the equipment you need to put in the air to conduct ASW, ASuW and Fisheries Patrols
It depends on the weight, size and cost and number of personnel you need to put in the air to man that kit
It depends on the weight, size, cost of an aircraft to carry aforementioned equipment and personnel
It depends on the resulting range and speed of the aircraft
It depends on the necessary frequency of patrols
It depends on the necessary maintenance
It depends on the necessary training.

Crunch the numbers on King Airs, CP-140s, P-8s, CF-18s and assorted UAVs and satellites then we can have an informed discussion.

 

[MarkOttawa]

prom:  I'm afraid I started this debate--excerpt from comment below:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/66394/post-646943.html#msg646943

...
A thought: why not separate general maritime, and arctic, surveillance duties (including vessel identification, pollution detection, fishery enforcement) and part of marine search and rescue from the Air Force and make them a civilian mission? As Transport Canada is already doing for pollution detection with a modified Bombardier Q Series.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/12/marine-pollution-surveillance-aircraft.html

Fisheries and Oceans meanwhile contracts with Provincial Airlines for three Beach King Air 200s for maritime surveillance, two east, one west coast (Aurora work for DFO also noted at link).
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/backgrou/2004/hq-ac20a_e.htm

In fact Q Series, modified by Field Aviation, are used in the general maritime role by Iceland (eight hour endurance), the US, Sweden, Japan and Australia.
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

Transport Canada could well operate such a fleet (despite their effort to become mainly a non-operational agency) on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Coast Guard, Environment Canada, CBSA/RCMP, CF as required, and others.

The Air Force would then presumably need fewer maritime patrol planes (whether Auroras or replacement) that would concentrate on military missions such as ASW and armed interdiction (and terrestrial surveillance, e.g. Afstan?).

And, if the Field Aviation Bombardiers actually fit the bill for such a broad suite of missions as outlined above, acquiring them would be a political plus I would imagine.

Some UAVs would also come in handy for maritime/arctic missions (operated by the Air Force for both military and civilian missions).

Mark
Ottawa

 

[aesop081]

Mark, i think i missed this originaly

The Air Force would then presumably need fewer maritime patrol planes (whether Auroras or replacement) that would concentrate on military missions such as ASW and armed interdiction (and terrestrial surveillance, e.g. Afstan?).

We currently have 18 Auroras in service. This was an insuficient number to begin with. When you account for aircraft unservicabilities, long-term priodic maintenance and TLIR, having less aircraft than that would not allow us to function even if we did not have to handle the routine patrols.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't doubt that we need more than 18 aircraft to maintain a serviceable fleet and get the job(s) done that we want.

But let's just suppose this for a moment.

Suppose we need a fleet of x number of squadrons aircraft,
Suppose further that we start an iteration from a stipulation of 14 aircraft per squadron,

Now the question:

I have the funds to buy 14 MPAs for each squadron
OR
I can opt to buy 12 MPAs and 12 King Air Fisheries Patrol aircraft for the same money thus generating 24 platforms

I am assuming these are equivalent, all-in life-cycle costs
I am also assuming that any capability deficiencies and spare air frame requirements are made up by the rest of the x-1 squadrons available to us

Which is the better buy?

14 MPAs
or
12 MPAs and 12 King Airs

I don't know the answer. 

I am just suggesting that until numbers are crunched estimates of courses of action don't have much precision.

 

[aesop081]

Which is the better buy?

14 MPAs
or
12 MPAs and 12 King Airs

I don't know the answer. 

Maybe i wasnt clear.

We have 18 CP-140 total. Those aircraft are shared between 404, 405, 407 sqns as well as MP&EU. Those 18 are barely enough to fullfill what you could call a purely "military" role let alone the more "civilian/ law enforcement" roles.


So saying that its "14 MPA per sqn or 14 MPA plus 14 civi patrol planes" doesnt solve anything.  We are short MPAs as it is.  Even if we were to be removed from the sovereignty patrol buisness tomorow morning, we would still be short aircraft.

 

[Bulls Eye]

Which is the better buy?

14 MPAs
or
12 MPAs and 12 King Airs

I don't know the answer. 

This is perhaps a great question to work with. IF the requirement was for 14 aircraft, and this were to be compared to an alternative model of going with 12 military MPA's and 12 King Air special missions aircraft. This model would imply that the operating cost (all-in including capital, etc.) of two military MPA's is the equivalent of 12 King Air's (or similar type).

This hypothetical model also and simply impliest then that the cost of one military MPA is the equivalent of 6 King Air's, or in other words, a King Air asset is only 16.7% the cost of a military MPA.

Can this be anywhere accurate?

The true benefit here is hidden not in the number of aircraft, but in the number of hours (surveillance presence) that can be created. Assuming that the military MPA's will do 1,000 hours per year each, with 14 aircraft, that's 14,000 hours of surveillance per year. I suggest that the King Air's would easily do 1,750 hours per year. Given this assumption, then the model of 12 military naval aircraft, and 12 King Air's yields 33,000 hours. Heck, that might even be too many King Air's!

What is does suggest though, is that it is extremely cost and operationally effective to use a non-military asset to focus on missions that otherwise does not require military presence.

Of course, the King Air would be incapable of completing 100% of a military MPA mission, but would certainly contribute to creating a significant domestic law enforcement presence.

 

[eurowing]

As I remember it from my MWO in 80ish when I was a Cpl.....  He said, we asked for 48 CP140s, said we could do the job with 36 we got 18.  He said, we don't always get what we need.  It struck me as very interesting that we asked for more than we wanted, but got half of what we needed.  Now, to be fair, I can't vouch for his account, but it is an accurate account of what he stated.  Just something I never forgot.