• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CMMA - replacing the CP140 Aurora

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
5,700
Points
1,260
There's an update!


Sea Guardian would be nice, but...don't hold your breathe. What we need is more money, in which we could get more aircraft and crews to fly and maintain them. Open the purse strings in Ottawa and I'd go mixed fleet of Sea Guardian or equiv, and crewed MPAs.
The difference between Sea Guardian and Sky Guardian, aside from the name, is a maritime radar. Which can be also put on the Sky Guardian.

It's the same aircraft with some other pods.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,492
Points
1,140
Neither; it just has to be configd to carry our current SKAD (easy to do, we've already done it with the P-3).



Sea Guardian would be nice, but...don't hold your breathe. What we need is more money, in which we could get more aircraft and crews to fly and maintain them. Open the purse strings in Ottawa and I'd go mixed fleet of Sea Guardian or equiv, and crewed MPAs.

If only 1 fleet is the option (reality), crewed MPA.



Yes


Not in the RCAF, IMO.



SAR needs to solve SAR. LRP needs to solve LRP. We are different fleets with different FE realities.
My guess is that they put SAR in there because of the duckbutt role the Aurora typically plays.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,549
Points
1,060
My guess is that they put SAR in there because of the duckbutt role the Aurora typically plays.

That too; I think they put SAR in there and at the top because Joe and Jane Public know what that is (kind of).

I would say during my Op Sqn tour, the crews I was on were involved in SAR taskings/missions 3-4 times a year and it's something we practice pretty frequently, across the fleet. Our "handbook" is 123 pages of lessons learned over many years.

Untitled.jpg
 
Last edited:

MTShaw

Full Member
Reaction score
96
Points
430
This is one of those situations where the CAF/GOC seems to pretend we live in glorious isolation. MOTS, modified MOTS, new design based on COTS, two different MOTS, MOTS and UAS. Is ANY option being left off the table?

Let's see...what are our major defence partners using?

USA? P-8
UK? P-8
Australia? P-8
New Zealand? P-8
Germany? P-8
Norway? P-8
South Korea? P-8
India? P-8?

At any point does someone say "All of our major allies are using the P-8. It's a proven, existing platform. It would give us commonality and interoperability as well as shared logistics potential. Are there any deal breakers with the P-8 which make it unsuitable for Canada as well? No? Then lets go with the P-8".
It’s a proven platform only if it works for us. The P-8 is only an ASW plane and not what is said above. So it would be holy sh!t modified MOTS. and in the end no longer what the other allies run.

Also that the power required to operate all of these systems would be a problem for a 737ng, no matter how much the alternators were altered.

I’m not a Boeing hater btw, I just think the P-8 is to small with to short a legs.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
5,700
Points
1,260
It’s a proven platform only if it works for us. The P-8 is only an ASW plane and not what is said above. So it would be holy sh!t modified MOTS. and in the end no longer what the other allies run.
What else is being said above, aside from "SAR" (as in dropping a SKAD)?

Also that the power required to operate all of these systems would be a problem for a 737ng, no matter how much the alternators were altered.
Doesn't the P-8 do that already?
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,549
Points
1,060
@MTShaw Ever been in one? I have. They're bigger than an Aurora on the inside, and laid out very nicely. I'd love to have that tac tube to work in.


"Only ASW"; I've done co-op with P-8s doing high-alt surveillance tasks on operations. I've done co-op with them on low-level, non-ASW tasks where they were working 200' off the surface, just like we were. I've done co-op ASW with them. They just get on station faster and can re-position faster than we can in a P-3. Op Cap's listed as required:

  • Search and Rescue (SAR); (I can't think of anything an Aurora does that a P-8 couldn't do, but get there faster to do it)
  • Command, Control, Communications, Computers (C4), Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) (C4ISR); (avionics, software and comms based hard capability, personnel/trg based soft cap)
  • Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW); (no brainer)
  • Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW); (both the USN and RAAF can and already have launched kill stores from wing pylons)

  • Communications Relay; (avionics and SW, easy)
  • Network Extension; and (avionics and SW, and the USN is ahead of the RCAF on this one)
  • Overland Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR). (I'm willing to go out on a limb and guess the P-8 TLE is a lower Cat than what the '140 had in Libya and Iraq/Syria. If the P-8 has a multimode RADAR capable of GMTI and SAR imagery, and a EOIR turret...along with LOS/BLOS FMV capability...voila. This is a very simplified example of a very complex mission type, for discussion ease).

Would we Canadianize it? Sure. Just like every other nation (none of them are the exact same...no different than the P-3 fleets were/are).

Short legs...no problem. Power...not sure what the issue is. Everyone else is running these with full, modern avionics, sensors and the other expected stuff.


I was a P-8 skeptic back years ago; used to 4 engines, turbo-prop etc etc and joined in on the "bah. HUMBUG!" opinion of P-8. I'm no longer so short-sighted. Don't get my wrong, I've spent quite of bit of time flying on Block 2, 3 and now 4 Aurora and this aircraft will always hold a place in my heart. She's done her duty for Canada and I was lucky enough to be a part of some of that.

It's just time for her to, you know, get in on a time-share down in Florida and enjoy retirement.
 
Last edited:

MTShaw

Full Member
Reaction score
96
Points
430
What else is being said above, aside from "SAR" (as in dropping a SKAD)?

The amount of computing that will take to synthesize all the information and share it with other nodes in the network would be much higher than purely AWS plane. Like a supercomputer flying around with you.

Doesn't the P-8 do that already?

A jet engine can only provide so much power. I don’t know exactly how big the generators/alternators are on a CFM56 For the 737. I don’t know if CFM/Boeing upgraded the power available.

The 787/A350 have engines large enough to swallow a 737 and have two alternators per engine as opposed the standard (an assumed on my part) one per engine for the 737. That is a concern.

Finally range. A business jet A350 can fly 20000 km (i do recognize two crews) where as a Business 737 can fly ~12000km. So that might be important given loiterning over the arctic from FOL Yellowknife still is a stretch at 20000km.

This is of course conjecture on my part.

Just my two Loonies.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
5,700
Points
1,260
The amount of computing that will take to synthesize all the information and share it with other nodes in the network would be much higher than purely AWS plane. Like a supercomputer flying around with you.
I'm sorry - I don't follow. What does the amount of computing power have to do with whether the aircraft is an ASW-centric aircraft or not? What you're saying doesn't take all that much computing power if it's just sharing its own info to the net.

Finally range. A business jet A350 can fly 20000 km (i do recognize two crews) where as a Business 737 can fly ~12000km. So that might be important given loiterning over the arctic from FOL Yellowknife still is a stretch at 20000km.
Is loitering over Alert (for example) from FOL Yellowknife a mandatory requirement though? I have no idea if it is or not.

Also, don't forget that the RCAF is looking at RPAS which could also do the surveillance piece, as well as satellites.
 

MTShaw

Full Member
Reaction score
96
Points
430
I'm sorry - I don't follow. What does the amount of computing power have to do with whether the aircraft is an ASW-centric aircraft or not? What you're saying doesn't take all that much computing power if it's just sharing its own info to the net.


Is loitering over Alert (for example) from FOL Yellowknife a mandatory requirement though? I have no idea if it is or not.

Also, don't forget that the RCAF is looking at RPAS which could also do the surveillance piece, as well as satellites.

I'm sorry - I don't follow. What does the amount of computing power have to do with whether the aircraft is an ASW-centric aircraft or not? What you're saying doesn't take all that much computing power if it's just sharing its own info to the net.


Is loitering over Alert (for example) from FOL Yellowknife a mandatory requirement though? I have no idea if it is or not.

Also, don't forget that the RCAF is looking at RPAS which could also do the surveillance piece, as well as satellites.
Computing power always depends on what you are trying to share. If the P? Is strictly a relay for low latency communication that is quite easy. If the P? Needs to change this and feed information to CF-35s and a CSC plus Ottawa RPAS and even North Bay, the compute power becomes an issue (That is buy definition of 5th and 6th generation warfare) Shitloads of information Shipping only interdiction is the most obvious role obvious role but not the most difficult to build.

We do have MQ-9Bs on the way but it depends how low latency time the communications for the RPAS need to be. So if it needs a simple then the P8 would do Having a metric sh!t load of range, power and communications gives options.

I’m just trying to speculate what would be best for Canada given how far away everything is from everything else.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
5,700
Points
1,260
Computing power always depends on what you are trying to share. If the P? Is strictly a relay for low latency communication that is quite easy. If the P? Needs to change this and feed information to CF-35s and a CSC plus Ottawa RPAS and even North Bay, the compute power becomes an issue (That is buy definition of 5th and 6th generation warfare) Shitloads of information Shipping only interdiction is the most obvious role obvious role but not the most difficult to build.
What you're talking about sounds more like a C2 or AWACS platform than what the CMMA is intended to do.
 

MTShaw

Full Member
Reaction score
96
Points
430
What you're talking about sounds more like a C2 or AWACS platform than what the CMMA is intended to do.
You may very well be correct. It depends on how imaginative the government and if we can afford both.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
5,700
Points
1,260
You may very well be correct. It depends on how imaginative the government and if we can afford both.
Cracking Up Lol GIF
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,549
Points
1,060
The amount of computing that will take to synthesize all the information and share it with other nodes in the network would be much higher than purely AWS plane. Like a supercomputer flying around with you.

I don’t think you understand a DMS (data management system), IMS (integrated mission system) on an aircraft or a TDES (Tactical data exchange system aka Link) that well. This is what happens on modern aircraft now.

A jet engine can only provide so much power. I don’t know exactly how big the generators/alternators are on a CFM56 For the 737. I don’t know if CFM/Boeing upgraded the power available.

The 787/A350 have engines large enough to swallow a 737 and have two alternators per engine as opposed the standard (an assumed on my part) one per engine for the 737. That is a concern.

Yet the P-8 has been successfully conducting missions for years. I’m confused on what the concern is here. “What is working now might not work even though it already is”.

Finally range. A business jet A350 can fly 20000 km (i do recognize two crews) where as a Business 737 can fly ~12000km. So that might be important given loiterning over the arctic from FOL Yellowknife still is a stretch at 20000km.

Aurora range; 7400km. Aurora can’t do air to air refueling. P-8 can and is.

 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
551
Points
1,090
It’s a proven platform only if it works for us. The P-8 is only an ASW plane and not what is said above. So it would be holy sh!t modified MOTS. and in the end no longer what the other allies run.
Um, what? The P8 is highly capable of conducting ASuW as well. She has a highly capable surface search radar, ESM suite (#what'satrout?), and can carry numerous Harpoons. In fact, you could argue she's a better ASuW platform than ASW platform (compared to the P3) .
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,457
Points
1,160
Replacing our Aurora's one-for-one with P-8's (plus MQ-9Bs from the JUSTAS program) would be one of the easiest and most effective ways to signal to the USA that we are taking defence more seriously. Combined with NORAD upgrades and the CSCs they would both increase continental security and provide robust ASW capability to supplement US forces. 18 x P-8's would make us the 2nd largest operator of the platform worldwide.

As I mentioned earlier I think the only semi-realistic alternative would be if Airbus offered an A330-based MPA as it would then share an airframe with the A330 MRTT's we're already buying. But that's a gigantic IF as they haven't even proposed such a platform and we would be the launch customer for that aircraft (and potentially the ONLY operator as most major potential customers have already jumped on the P-8 bandwagon) with all the serious potential issues that go along with that.
 
Top