Dash 8s as patrol aircraft?

[Hawker]

Saw this online in the Saskatoon paper:
Bombardier Aerospace has sold three Q300 turboprops to a Toronto-based aerospace services company that will modify the aircraft and resell them to the Swedish Coast Guard for maritime surveillance. Field Aviation Co. of Toronto is buying the aircraft and converting them under an $80-million US contract by the Swedish Coast Guard for its next-generation fisheries and environmental surveillance system.
(http://www.canada.com/saskatoon/starphoenix/news/business/story.html?id=3b7dd19d-636a-44a2-aa20-de8c1aa59557)

Would this be a fairly reasonable/cost effective alternative/suppliment to the Auroras?

 

[sgt_mandal]

You shuold post a link whenever you reffer from another website. 

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

It would seem much more cost-effective to monitor illegal fishing, boats dumping oil, etc. with the Q-series fit with a Wescam skyball gimbal than with sea-based Canadian Navy Assets.

Specifically, I'd like to see a mix from low-to-high of Predator-B to Q-series to Aurora to Sea Asset for our coastal patrol structure.  

The system would be based on using the cheapest asset possible (UAV) to cover inshore areas, the Q-series to cover the primary sealanes with the Auroras on standby to observe, track and record any vessel or contact that has been identified as suspicious and bring in any sea assets it feels are necessary based on that observation.

JMHO,



Matthew.  

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Ummmm Blackshirt those seabased Canadian Navy assets provide a deterence and a presence in the Fishing Zones 24 hrs a day 7 days a week when needed. They provide a base of operations for DFO/RCMP/Naval Boarding Parties and if something goes wrong they can provide SAR and a casualty handling facility

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

My argument is not that we need fewer sea-based assets, just that constant aerial surveillance by a variety of platforms would act as a significant force multiplier making our sea-based assets that much more effective.   There is not doubt it is the sea-based assets that have to do the dirty work.   The additional airborne assets would simply provide them with a better set of eyes and ears to do their job.



Matthew.    

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

My argument is not that we need fewer sea-based assets, just that constant aerial surveillance by a variety of platforms would act as a significant force multiplier making our sea-based assets that much more effective.  There is not doubt it is the sea-based assets that have to do the dirty work.  The additional airborne assets would simply provide them with a better set of eyes and ears to do their job.

It would seem much more cost-effective to monitor illegal fishing, boats dumping oil, etc. with the Q-series fit with a Wescam skyball gimbal than with sea-based Canadian Navy Assets.

That statement says otherwise.

 

[aesop081]

Ok, i want to answer the orinal topic if thats ok with you guys.

I fly in the DASH-8 right now.....so we all know where i get my opinion on the subject.

It is a very nice plane to be flying in ( from a GIB perspective).  The APS-504 is a very capable and reliable radar system. IMHO, it could be used in the MPA role, albeit in a short range one.  The problem lies in where our air bases are located.  When we go up in the CT-142 we get about 4 hours endurance, where the CP-140 gets 14 !! See what i'm getting at ?  When we had the tracker, we also had CFB summerside to operate from so we did not have to go that far but now on the atlantic, greenwood is the only site the military has.  The DASH-8 simply does not have the range required.

The aircraft as it is now, has a max T/O weight of 34500 lbs. Our total zero-fuel weight is 27900 lbs. Add 6500 lbs fuel for a total of 34400 lbs.  Do you see any room for weapons, more fuel and the additional gear the would be required for the MPA role ?? Even if you only want to concentrate on the patrol aspects........

 

[Mortar guy]

aesop081,

With considerable respect for your obviously extensive knowledge of the Dash 8, may I just point one thing out: the CT-142 is based on the oldest version of the Dash 8 IIRC while the Q series (-100/-200/-300/-400) have some improvements over the pre-1996 Dash 8s (see link: http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp) Wouldn't this mean that newer Dash 8s have a greater payload and therefore would be better suited to the MPA role? Here's a proposal for a MP version of the Dash 8: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/th1-bcms.htm. Please feel free to tell me to shut up as I am just an infanteer with an opinion and not an expert!  ;D

MG

 

[Inch]

I think you may be on to something MG. The Q400 for example has a range of 1362nm at 360kts. It would probably decrease though since MPA's tend to fly around at 500-1000ft over the water. Jet engines are more efficient at altitude so you're going to burn more fuel for less range. On the flip side, the Q400 has a payload of just over 19,000 lbs with an AUW of 64,500lbs. We could easily modify or add fuel tanks to make up the difference since we wouldn't need to be able to haul around 70 pax.

You're still not going to get 14hrs endurance out of it, but there isn't much out there other than the Auroras (P3 Orions) and maybe the Nimrods that can get that kind of endurance. In fact, the Auroras shut down an engine in order to stay out as long as they do.

Oh yeah, aesop, we do still have a runway in Shearwater, it's even got a PAR on it!

 

[aesop081]

aesop081,

With considerable respect for your obviously extensive knowledge of the Dash 8, may I just point one thing out: the CT-142 is based on the oldest version of the Dash 8 IIRC while the Q series (-100/-200/-300/-400) have some improvements over the pre-1996 Dash 8s (see link: http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp) Wouldn't this mean that newer Dash 8s have a greater payload and therefore would be better suited to the MPA role? Here's a proposal for a MP version of the Dash 8: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/th1-bcms.htm. Please feel free to tell me to shut up as I am just an infanteer with an opinion and not an expert!   ;D

MG

I had seen this proposal before and although it seemed interesting at the time, it still does not solve the fact that the newer versions still have short legs at , IMHO, this is a serious drawback, given our geography. Unless we suddenly come up with new bases to station these planes, transit times would take away much of the dash-8's limited endurance. Remember that the -8 was designed for short range passenger transport, not MP. If you look at a VNC of the atlantic, its a somewhat long way from greenwood to operational patrol area ELK, not leaving much for the -8 if you want any sort of useful loiter time. Don't forget that we also have to use MPA to patrol the north. Maybe if we simply want an aicraft that can fly around and look, i suppose it could be done but i see the design as too limited to become a true MPA ( a mini-aurora) with all the systems (FLIR, MAD, ESM, Sonar,) and crew required. As it is now, we are pretty tight in there with a crew of 8 and the only sensor we have is the APS-504 radar. IMHO, the future of maritime air ops is in the use of UAVs for near-shore surveillance and long-range MPA for off-shore tracking , identification and prosecution.  The current CP-140 is now undergoing AIMP, but this modernisation must go further and a replacement should be found sooner rather that later.

EDIT : Inch, i wasn't aware that the runway still had PAR, i should look in my flips i guess.

 

[Garbageman]

Unless we suddenly come up with new bases to station these planes, transit times would take away much of the dash-8's limited endurance.

GANDER?

 

[aesop081]

And do you see the government putting forward the money to expand the facilities there ?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

That statement says otherwise.

No it doesn't.   It states that for surveillance purposes airborne assets cover a lot more sea for the buck.   It does not negate the fact you still need sea assets to interdict any contacts that have been determined to require interception and possible boarding.



Matthew.   

 

[Garbageman]

And do you see the government putting forward the money to expand the facilities there ?

Quite simply, no.  The same way that I don't see them putting forward money to purchase new MP aircraft in the first place when we have dozens of other priorities.  But it would seem a logical solution if we were to ever procure more aircraft.  Put some of them in Greenwood, some in Gander, and hell, some in Sydney if possible.  412 Sqn's operation out of civy facilities in Ottawa and 443 Sqn at Pat Bay are prime examples of this kind of structure (provided the sqn is kept relatively small).

 

[aesop081]

Quite simply, no.  The same way that I don't see them putting forward money to purchase new MP aircraft in the first place when we have dozens of other priorities.  But it would seem a logical solution if we were to ever procure more aircraft.  Put some of them in Greenwood, some in Gander, and hell, some in Sydney if possible.  412 Sqn's operation out of civy facilities in Ottawa and 443 Sqn at Pat Bay are prime examples of this kind of structure (provided the sqn is kept relatively small).

True enough.

 

[Cloud Cover]

What are the specs for the Canadianized FW SAR contenders, and can any of them be configured for Canadian MP. I understand the Brazilian model has a patrol variant, but operating conditions in the great white north are a little different than Brazil.

One more thing, can the FW SAR's under consideration be fitted for AAR? Cheers.

 

[aesop081]

What are the specs for the Canadianized FW SAR contenders, and can any of them be configured for Canadian MP. I understand the Brazilian model has a patrol variant, but operating conditions in the great white north are a little different than Brazil.

One more thing, can the FW SAR's under consideration be fitted for AAR? Cheers.

Do you mean  "can they be configured as tankers" or "can they be configured to be air-refuelable"

 

[Cloud Cover]

Sorry, the latter.

 

[aesop081]

Sorry, the latter.

I would not see that as being a problem.  We use the "probe and drogue" system of air refueling so it is not a complicated thing to make whatever plateform the gov selects capable of AAR with our new CC-150 tankers or our current tanker-capable CC-130

 

[Zoomie]

What are the specs for the Canadianized FW SAR contenders, and can any of them be configured for Canadian MP. I understand the Brazilian model has a patrol variant

The CASA does indeed have an MP variant...  Let's leave it at that...

The FWSAR aircraft will not be configured for AAR nor will it conduct any other role apart from transport and RESCUE (little T, big R).  The aircraft will be painted  bright yellow with red "RESCUE" on the side, so don't expect any tactical roles (ie para or TAL).