Dash 8s as patrol aircraft?

[aesop081]

aesop, I'm pretty sure that the Mk46's that the Auroras carry are the same ones we carry, in that case, they're not anti ship. They're only anti-sub. They have a min and max depth, due to OPSEC I can't say what that is, but according to this site http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-46.htm the min depth is 20 yards, most ships don't sit 60ft down in the water so the torpedo would never be able to acquire the target.

Yeah i know...i forgot to type the words "in case of sub" !   All fixed now.........

 

[Sheerin]

I didn't think our CP-140s had the ability to launch harpoons?

 

[aesop081]

I didn't think our CP-140s had the ability to launch harpoons?

I refer you to:

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/cp-140/intro_e.asp

look down on the page in the specs for weapons.  I have been told by many in the MPA community that the kit exists

 

[Sheerin]

hmm, thanks for the info.  I always knew they could, but always thought we never got the kit for it.

 

[Zoomie]

Canadian CP-140's do not carrythe Harpoon AGM.  The hardpoints exist, but the training does not.  AIMP phase 4 (if it gets funded) has talk about possibily including some sort of airborne launched weapon.  Torps and SKADS, that's it for now...

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/psi.htm
http://www.msc.navy.mil/sealift/2004/February/seasaber.htm
http://www.warshipsifr.com/pages/huntForWMD.html

This is what I was thinking about guys.  It's the Proliferation Security Initiative and it was announced May 31, 2003.  I haven't re-read the items to confirm content.  (If at variance with what I have said - they're right, I'm wrong.)

As to legs of the CF188, aesop that is why I was suggesting I was suggesting a proliferation of AAR platforms.  Having said that, your comment about over-thinking the issue is probably a fair comment.  In fact I would go farther, I am more likely guilty of UNDER-thinking the issue.

Cheers, and continued safe flying to the lot of you.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1329

www.lcnp.org/disarmament/MEMO_NK_interdiction.PDF

Here's the Canadian position and a legal opinion.  As I read it, the Initiative seems to be saying that any unidentified vessel, or any suspect vessel flying under a flag of convenience whose government has agreed to allow the inspection can be boarded on the high seas and searched.  Canada seems to be in agreement and DND seems to be saying we can and would conduct such activities.

Anywho.... fyi.

Cheers.

 

[Inch]

Thanks for the info Kirkhill, that makes a little more sense. The way I read it is you still need permission from the government whose flag is being flown. Even if the crew is all Canadian citizens, if they're flying another country's flag, they can't be boarded. If it was a Canadian flag, we could board at will. The thing about that agreement is it's only that, an agreement. So if a ship flying an Ecuadorian flag is suspect and the Government of Ecuador says no to the boarding, there isn't a thing we can do and we revert back to the 12nm of sovereign Canadian waters.

 

[aesop081]

Canadian CP-140's do not carrythe Harpoon AGM.   The hardpoints exist, but the training does not.   AIMP phase 4 (if it gets funded) has talk about possibily including some sort of airborne launched weapon.   Torps and SKADS, that's it for now...

Yeah, i was aware of those facts but i do include it as a capability because the A/C can do it and it would not take much to get it going for our crews.  Look at what the argentinians did with exocet and very little training in its employement and no technical support.  Bottom line for me is that the CP-140 has the hardpoints to carry AGM-84s so we could do it.  I realy hope that AIMP block IV comes trough.

 

[Kirkhill]

That's the way I read it as well but with a couple of interesting riders.  One is that an "unidentified" vessel - one flying no flag - can be boarded,  I'm guessing that that was always possible under current slavery/piracy/fishery regulations.  The other is that I can imagine that some persuasive effort might be exerted on all nations, especially the poorer flag of convenience nations to allow this type of boarding and inspection.

I am looking at the situation as analogous to our local coppers.  It gives them one more "probable cause" to justify search and siezure.  The difference is that on land there are few regions of the developed world where you cross out of one jurisdiction into a region with no, or a disputed, jurisdiction.  At sea the situation seems to be more complex, but perhaps you can explain how admiralty law was used to control slavery and piracy on the high seas?  Especially if the activities were carried out under national flags.

Sorry for dragging this thread off topic somewhat, but as these thoughts pertain to our Areas of Interest, Influence and Operations I think they pertain to what types of Patrol Aircraft, in what mix, we need.

 

[Inch]

As I said, I'm no expert on the Laws of the Sea, I know what applies to me as a Sea King pilot, but that's about the extent of it. Piracy and slavery are forbidden under the Laws of the Sea, thus any warship from a country that ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea has the right to board merchant vessels in order to put a stop to slavery and piracy. My understanding of the high seas is that as long as you're not participating in piracy or the slave trade, you can do pretty much whatever you want.

Maybe Sam can jump in here since he's probably got more in depth knowledge wrt this situation.

 

[Garbageman]

From the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea:  States must also "cooperate in the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances..." (Article 108).  Pretty loosely worded though - I'm not sure how much power we'd have to board if the flag state isn't onside.  I've been reading through old law texts trying to find an answer to this, but it's hard to say what rights we have outside 12nm.  It seems clear that if it's an issue of over-fishing or some other form of environmental degredation in the EEZ (out to 200nm), then we do have the power to stop and board a vessel.

Someone slap me if I'm way out to lunch, but that's my take anyway.

 

[404SqnAVSTeach]

Maybe we should be looking into CL-415MP... for Patrol
http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=3_0&lang=en&file=/en/3_0/3_3/3_3_7_61.html 
Amphibious Multi-Purpose Aircraft... With EO/IR, Radar, and the Latest and greatest in Avionics Technology.

 

[rosmalia]

just wanna know either Dash 8 had already in the maritime configuration or not... coz i didnt see any proven capability/news stated that Dash 8 (especially Q400) were configured in maritime/surveillance prupose...

 

[STONEY]

I thought i'd throw a couple more points into the discussion.

Transport Canada flys pollution patrols in a specially configured Dash 8 out of Moncton & StJohn's on the east coast on 6 !/2
missions . There is only 1 of them and it rotates across Canada spending a few days patroling in turn the east coast ,St.Lawrence, Great lakes and west coast.

DOF also flys fisheries surveillance patrols on east coast with King Airs on 6 hr. missions  with 3 aircraft out of Halifax & St.John`s  The data obtained from these flights is fed to MARCOM to help complete surface picture off our coasts.

Under the NAFO agreement Canadian vessels are allowed to stop and inspect fishing vessels outside the 200 mile limit and routinely do this east of Nfld.

AAR`S like Polaris would`t be used for SAR because they refuel at too high an altitude and speed and are used to refuel jets.
Herc tankers are used to fuel helo`s and even they have to fly just above stall speed for a helo to keep up. The US uses them to refuel theis choppers on long SAR missions. The new FWSAR could be fitted with a fueling probe  but weather the cost & effort would be worthwile considering the amount of times it would ever be used is another matter.

cheers

 

[X-Rigger]

Hmm.  Interesting and kinda sad at the same time, since 434 Sqn used to fly the Challengers in a limited MP role, now they're all but gone.  They often came back with photographic evidence of illegal activity including overfishing and dumping.  Although the maritime environment was hard on the a/c, it was still a fairly cost-effective platform with a decent endurance of somewhere around 4-6 hours (IIRC).  Funny how these issues are always cyclical eh!