CMMA - replacing the CP140 Aurora

[calculus]

From the RAF Lossiemouth social media page:

https://www.facebook.com/100068705917356/posts/pfbid02NFFvdJzJwWroo9ANk4V4wMzj488ctQnGJjCWjxe54KHLE6UoNpfV6PuKZ1RFGJdzl

More on this:

RCAF CP-140 crews have begun P-8A operational training at RAF Lossiemouth - Skies Mag

The process of transitioning Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) maritime patrol crews from the CP-140M Aurora to the P-8A Poseidon is well underway in the United Kingdom.

skiesmag.com

 

[Czech_pivo]

More on this:

RCAF CP-140 crews have begun P-8A operational training at RAF Lossiemouth - Skies Mag

The process of transitioning Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) maritime patrol crews from the CP-140M Aurora to the P-8A Poseidon is well underway in the United Kingdom.

skiesmag.com

Now just pick up the option on the other 2 and add another 6

 

[Maxman1]

Now just pick up the option on the other 2 and add another 16

Fixed it for you.

 

[suffolkowner]

Fixed it for you.

save some money for something else

 

[KevinB]

save some money for something else

Largest coastline in the world needs a decent sized fleet.

 

[suffolkowner]

Largest coastline in the world needs a decent sized fleet.

maybe but thats going to result in a substantial budget increase. Im not against it just there are always other asks
It is an awfully close number to the Argus

 

[Czech_pivo]

maybe but thats going to result in a substantial budget increase. Im not against it just there are always other asks
It is an awfully close number to the Argus

Look at it like this - if we stay with 14, that’s basically 7 for the east and 7 for the west, with both of them dealing with the north as needed.
If the availability % of these 7 sit at 70ish% that’s a total of 5 planes available on each coast at any 1 time. Throw in an international deployment and now it’s at 4.
Are we good with having a max of 4 plane’s available for the entire east coast and eastern side of the North?

 

[suffolkowner]

Look at it like this - if we stay with 14, that’s basically 7 for the east and 7 for the west, with both of them dealing with the north as needed.
If the availability % of these 7 sit at 70ish% that’s a total of 5 planes available on each coast at any 1 time. Throw in an international deployment and now it’s at 4.
Are we good with having a max of 4 plane’s available for the entire east coast and eastern side of the North?

we are now. Is that how we station them? Equally?
our choices lol
14
16
22
32

 

[newfin]

we are now. Is that how we station them? Equally?
our choices lol
14
16
22
32

Well, 14 has never seemed like enough. I haven't heard if Poillievre has said if he supports the purchase of the extra 2 airframes. But I hope he does. He wants a base in Iqaluit for better Arctic Sovereignty enforcement; 6 more P8A airframes would be a good place to start to bolster that commitment.

 

[Czech_pivo]

we are now. Is that how we station them? Equally?
our choices lol
14
16
22
32

No, lol, but I was just trying to give an examples of how 14 planes across all of Canada might look like.
With maintenance and training, the available numbers across the 2nd biggest landmass and largest coastline in the world is quite small.

 

[GR66]

Look at it like this - if we stay with 14, that’s basically 7 for the east and 7 for the west, with both of them dealing with the north as needed.
If the availability % of these 7 sit at 70ish% that’s a total of 5 planes available on each coast at any 1 time. Throw in an international deployment and now it’s at 4.
Are we good with having a max of 4 plane’s available for the entire east coast and eastern side of the North?

Personally I think that maximizing our MPA fleet should be a no-brainer the CAF. Domestic domain awareness (and control) is always a must-have for enforcing our own sovereignty and ASW assets will be in huge demand in a conflict with either Russia or China.

If I were CDS for the day I'd ideally see the P-8 buy increased to 21 to match the size of the CP-140 fleet and I'd convert our 16 x CC-295's to the MPA/ASW version. For the SAR role I'd replace the Kingfishers with 16 more CC-130J's (which could be re-roled for additional transport capability in case of a conflict).

It wouldn't be adding any new aircraft types to our fleet beyond what we already have so supply chains wouldn't be complicated. Personnel requirements for the increased fleet sizes would be an issue but certainly less of an issue than substantially increasing our RCN fleet size for example.

 

[dapaterson]

Using a made up number: if one additional airframe means you need six additional pilots, then adding 30 new airframes means we need a surge of 180 new pilots, and steady state production of about 20 more annually.

(This assumes the a/c all have two pilots and we wand three crews per a/c).

Can the RCAF rapidly knit 180 new pilots and increase throughput by 20 a year?

 

[YZT580]

Personally I think that maximizing our MPA fleet should be a no-brainer the CAF. Domestic domain awareness (and control) is always a must-have for enforcing our own sovereignty and ASW assets will be in huge demand in a conflict with either Russia or China.

If I were CDS for the day I'd ideally see the P-8 buy increased to 21 to match the size of the CP-140 fleet and I'd convert our 16 x CC-295's to the MPA/ASW version. For the SAR role I'd replace the Kingfishers with 16 more CC-130J's (which could be re-roled for additional transport capability in case of a conflict).

It wouldn't be adding any new aircraft types to our fleet beyond what we already have so supply chains wouldn't be complicated. Personnel requirements for the increased fleet sizes would be an issue but certainly less of an issue than substantially increasing our RCN fleet size for example.

yes to all but the kingfisher. Use them as basic transport in the Arctic/ranger aircraft and supplementary SAR for north of 60. With PP talking about establishing a major base in Inuvik you are going to want dedicated a/c a little closer at hand than YTR.

 

[GR66]

Using a made up number: if one additional airframe means you need six additional pilots, then adding 30 new airframes means we need a surge of 180 new pilots, and steady state production of about 20 more annually.

(This assumes the a/c all have two pilots and we wand three crews per a/c).

Can the RCAF rapidly knit 180 new pilots and increase throughput by 20 a year?

Actually we'd only be adding 21 new airframes (5 x additional P-8's above the original 16 planned and 16 x CC-130J's to replace the Kingfishers in the MPA role) so "only" 126 new pilots. Of course pilots aren't the only additional personnel you'd require. There's the additional aircrew, maintainers, increased support staff (everything from clerks, cooks and firefighters) to support the larger/additional squadrons.

Definitely not a small undertaking without significant personnel issues, but by comparison adding one additional River-class Destroyer with it's complement of approx. 210 plus all their duplicate positions and supporting staff, etc. I think the CAF capability increase from adding 21 additional aircraft is more easily achievable than many other options (additional warships, infantry battalions, etc.).

 

[GR66]

yes to all but the kingfisher. Use them as basic transport in the Arctic/ranger aircraft and supplementary SAR for north of 60. With PP talking about establishing a major base in Inuvik you are going to want dedicated a/c a little closer at hand than YTR.

I would think that additional Twin Otters would be a more suitable solution for permanent presence in the Arctic (and easier to maintain with resources already available in the region) with other assets deploying there as required.

As for establishing a major base in Inuvik I'm not sure if PP spoke with anyone in the CAF about that idea before throwing it out there. I'm definitely very much in favour of increasing our military infrastructure in the North as well as our capability to project force up there, but stationing a significant number of personnel up there year round I'm not sure would be worth the cost and effort at this time.

 

[dapaterson]

Inuvik is population 7500. A CAF base would need a big sustainment tail locally because of the lack of supporting civilian infrastructure - it makes Cold Lake look positively metropolitan.

If we assume 200 CAF members, grow it to 500 including families, the infra investment (accomodation and support side) would probably see another 250 or so in second order population growth - so a 10% increase in the population. Not going to happen overnight.

 

[YZT580]

I would think that additional Twin Otters would be a more suitable solution for permanent presence in the Arctic (and easier to maintain with resources already available in the region) with other assets deploying there as required.

As for establishing a major base in Inuvik I'm not sure if PP spoke with anyone in the CAF about that idea before throwing it out there. I'm definitely very much in favour of increasing our military infrastructure in the North as well as our capability to project force up there, but stationing a significant number of personnel up there year round I'm not sure would be worth the cost and effort at this time.

Indeed, but we already have the Kingfisher. Trying to find a use for it other than as a practice drone

 

[GR66]

Indeed, but we already have the Kingfisher. Trying to find a use for it other than as a practice drone

Which is why I suggested re-roleing them for the MPA/ASW role (which Airbus has already built and according to the link "the C295 can deploy torpedoes, anti-surface missiles and depth charges. Chile and Spain have acquired the C295 for service in ASW missions."

According to Wikipedia the following nations already deploy the C295 in a maritime patrol role, so wouldn't be a new bespoke design for Canada:

Algeria

• The Algerian Air Force received six C-295s for transport and maritime patrol.

Angola

• The Angolan Air Force ordered two C-295s for maritime patrol duties and one for transport.

Chile

• The Chilean Navy operates three C-295 MPAs.

India

• Indian Navy - Nine planned; proposal has been cleared by Indian Ministry of Defence.
• Indian Coast Guard - Six planned; proposal has been cleared by Indian Ministry of Defence.

Indonesia

• The Indonesian Air Force operates 10 C-295s for tactical and logistical transport. One of them are of the maritime patrol variant, having replaced its elderly Fokker F27 Friendships.

Ireland

• The Irish Air Corps ordered two C-295 Maritime Patrol Aircraft in December 2019 to replace their CN-235 aircraft.

Portugal

• The Portuguese Air Force received 12 C-295s, including seven transport (PG01) and five Persuader Maritime Patrol Aircraft (C-295 MPA, three PG02 and two PG03), to replace the C-212 Aviocar. They are operated by 502 Squadron and are based at Montijo Air Base, near Lisbon.

SpainCASA C-295 T.21-04 from the 35th Wing of the Spanish Air and Space Force

• The Spanish Air and Space Force operates 13 C-295s (designated internally T.21). In June 2023, a further 16 units, 6 in MPA configuration and 10 in MSA configuration, were ordered to replace the force's recently retired P-3 Orion and the CN-235 D.4 aircraft.

 

[YZT580]

Which is why I suggested re-roleing them for the MPA/ASW role (which Airbus has already built and according to the link "the C295 can deploy torpedoes, anti-surface missiles and depth charges. Chile and Spain have acquired the C295 for service in ASW missions."

According to Wikipedia the following nations already deploy the C295 in a maritime patrol role, so wouldn't be a new bespoke design for Canada:

Algeria

• The Algerian Air Force received six C-295s for transport and maritime patrol.

Angola

• The Angolan Air Force ordered two C-295s for maritime patrol duties and one for transport.

Chile

• The Chilean Navy operates three C-295 MPAs.

India

• Indian Navy - Nine planned; proposal has been cleared by Indian Ministry of Defence.
• Indian Coast Guard - Six planned; proposal has been cleared by Indian Ministry of Defence.

Indonesia

• The Indonesian Air Force operates 10 C-295s for tactical and logistical transport. One of them are of the maritime patrol variant, having replaced its elderly Fokker F27 Friendships.

Ireland

• The Irish Air Corps ordered two C-295 Maritime Patrol Aircraft in December 2019 to replace their CN-235 aircraft.

Portugal

• The Portuguese Air Force received 12 C-295s, including seven transport (PG01) and five Persuader Maritime Patrol Aircraft (C-295 MPA, three PG02 and two PG03), to replace the C-212 Aviocar. They are operated by 502 Squadron and are based at Montijo Air Base, near Lisbon.

SpainCASA C-295 T.21-04 from the 35th Wing of the Spanish Air and Space Force

• The Spanish Air and Space Force operates 13 C-295s (designated internally T.21). In June 2023, a further 16 units, 6 in MPA configuration and 10 in MSA configuration, were ordered to replace the force's recently retired P-3 Orion and the CN-235 D.4 aircraft.

and where would you base them? Can't be Greenwood unless you are prepared to overnight in Gander or St. John's before actually entering your patrol area in the Atlantic. Plus if you choose Gander you will be landing with empty tanks. Every country listed has airbases within a few minutes of the coast and none of them have anywhere near the waters to patrol that we have.

 

[calculus]

I have a newfound appreciation for what the current CP-140s are capable of:

Canadian Military Journal Vol. 21, No. 2

Seems like a shame to scrap them when the P-8s arrive. I wonder if they could be put into another role, such as pure surveillance, once the ASW is picked up by the P8s.