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

Boeing to offer P-8 as CP-140 Replacement

dapaterson said:
You're just worried that the RCAF will discover that ACSOs aren't necessary, and you'll have to make your own coffee.
Click to expand...
I’m scared we will either (1) buy some Aussie or Kiwi “gently used” P-3s, or the new airframe will have a Fisher Price sticker on it…😐

But…I’m 51. Even if they move CRA to age 70…I’ll never have to do conversion to the “new LRP fleet”. 😁
 
Spencer100 said:
This also fits the bill. Made in Canada. Plus I doubt it can carry a weapons load. So that's a bonus our government. Plus the accountants will love as no weapons no cost.
Click to expand...

Chris Pratt What GIF


Torps are pretty neat things to have on an ASW aircraft.

The same components that carry, store, protect and release our torps also do the same functions for SKADS / ASKADs. Those are nifty for SAR; LRP is very good at the “search” part, not so good at the “rescue” part so it would be nice to keep that capability.
 
Last edited:
Good2Golf said:
View attachment 68619

OBE. Longview swung the Dash 8 family back to de Havilland, and as armrdsoul77 notes above, DH and PAL are the latest version of Q400/P4 to be considered for pitching to Canada for CMA. Longview may even throw a bone to QC by asking L3MAS to do some minor work, as L3(Harris) has to date, been the only company to actually make a high-end ISR Q400. de Havilland inherited the work with L3HARRIS from Bombardier.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure I saw this aircraft at YHZ in Nov close to 6 Hgr.
 
Ideally, it will be bog standard off the line with the only Canadianization a RCAF Roundel. Bespoke fleets are NP hogs.
 
Spencer100 said:
This also fits the bill. Made in Canada. Plus I doubt it can carry a weapons load. So that's a bonus our government. Plus the accountants will love as no weapons no cost.
Click to expand...
Warmed weapons bays for the Mk.54s 👍🏼
 
Copy; I thought you meant the L3 Q400 has them already. I started looking for pics and some more data on that aircraft.

 
Eye In The Sky said:
Copy; I thought you meant the L3 Q400 has them already. I started looking for pics and some more data on that aircraft.

Click to expand...
The current fitment shows external fitment of 46/54/other, but I was talking to an L3 rep at the Dubai Airshow who said they also have internal options (non-pressurized) in the lateral sponsons. The ventral sponson is for fuel.
9D5D8981-A897-46B3-AE27-435C8CD375E6.jpg
 
Interesting how the RFI mentions they are considering a mixed fleet of either two aircraft types or one manned aircraft fleet and one UAS fleet.
"ANNEX C – OPTIONS BEING CONSIDERED The options that are being considered during Options Analysis (OA) by the CMMA Project as viable solutions are:
 Buy MOTS. A single new manned Military off-the Shelf (MOTS) aircraft fleet would be procured that meets all HLMRs, with minimal or no modification required.
 Buy and Modify MOTS. A single new manned MOTS aircraft fleet would be procured that meets all HLMRs, with moderate change or modification required.
 Buy COTS and Develop into MOTS. A single new manned Civilian off-the-Shelf (COTS) aircraft fleet would be procured that meets HLMR 4 (Coverage), with major modification required to develop it into a military platform that meets all HLMRs.
 Buy 2 x MOTS. Two fleets of new manned MOTS aircraft that share a common airframe but have different configurations would be procured. Together this mixed fleet would meet all HLMRs, with minimal or no modification required.
 Buy MOTS and UAS. A fleet of new manned MOTS aircraft and a fleet of new Unmanned Air Systems (UAS) would be procured. Together this mixed fleet would meet all HLMRs, with minimal or no modification required."
Click to expand...

On the interoperability front is there any option other than the P-8? With all of the Five eyes countries using the P-8 it seems the decision has been made for us. That being said I see this project being kicked very far down the road as Boeing is a very bad word in Ottawa right now.

Military systems getting more and more complex and expensive as time goes on the trend seems to be toward less options available for a given system (Fighters, Tanks, Maritime patrol). I am unnerved a little by this as if an enemy finds a chink in the system that they can exploit then the enemy will be at a great advantage as everyone is using the same system. For example, If lets say China finds a way to confuse or hide subs from a P-8 that doesn't work for Lets say the Japanese P-1 suddenly they can hide from almost all the worlds navies.

I realize the MPA is only one tool in the arsenal and navies employ MPHs and ship borne sub hunting tech however i'm sure some of the technology is shared across platforms.

This also concerns me with the global adoption of the F-35. With it's three variants the F-35 will gain an extremely high market share of fighters in the frendly skies (maybe 80%+). If an enemy finds a way to beat it NATO will be helpless until a solution can be found.
 
Copy; heated laterals is definitely interesting.

I was able to find 1 picture of the interior; lots of useable space it seems. Did you get to poke around inside?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it seemed about 50% longer than PAL’s Q300 (FMX), but had less systems than PAL’s. The mission system wasn’t up, so hard to tell what it was running. In contrast, PAL was up and running (MS was Thales’ AMASCOS).
 
Eye In The Sky said:
I’m scared we will either (1) buy some Aussie or Kiwi “gently used” P-3s, or the new airframe will have a Fisher Price sticker on it…😐

But…I’m 51. Even if they move CRA to age 70…I’ll never have to do conversion to the “new LRP fleet”. 😁
Click to expand...
Ha ha! At Bahrain I mentioned to a Kiwi that the RNZAF should complete the Commonwealth Dance of Screw Canada by selling their P3’s to us! It would not surprise me if that is a COA.
 
Good2Golf said:
Yeah, it seemed about 50% longer than PAL’s Q300 (FMX), but had less systems than PAL’s. The mission system wasn’t up, so hard to tell what it was running. In contrast, PAL was up and running (MS was Thales’ AMASCOS).
Click to expand...

I could think positively about a “mixed fleet” with both those aircraft; similar to Arcturus/Aurora concept…IMPACT and OUP are examples of times we didn’t need airframes with bomb bays tied up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kirkhill
Mucking around in the Irish Sea - Critical Infrastructure
Replies
1
Views
159
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Joint Force Arsenal
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
78K
FJAG
FJAG
C
The Case for AEW&C Aircraft
2
Replies
37
Views
37K
GR66
GR66
Eye In The Sky
Germany Halts P-3 Mission System upgrade as MPA Alternatives Examined
Replies
2
Views
11K
lenaitch
lenaitch
MarkOttawa
Tornado replacement: Luftwaffe to get Eurofighters, Super Hornets and Growlers?
Replies
16
Views
18K
LiveFightMove
LiveFightMove
Back
Top