I would like to see the CP-140's replaced with:
8 x P-8
6 x RQ-4
And so, in accordance with site guidelines (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44917.0.html),
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tasks and roles:
Would be broadly similar to those carried out by the CP-140s, but there would be a division of taskings into those which require 'longer-endurance-and-more-surveilance' versus 'shorter-endurance-and-more-killing'. In the process we would gain a platform capable of longer-endurance for those missions which require it, and a seperate platform which should be more survivable, and hopefully more effective at killing bad guys (in many if not most scenarios).
Aircraft maintenance cycle:
Maintenance costs tend to be based largely around 2 factors, 1) how much airplane (mass) are you trying to fly? And 2) how many engines are you using?
CP-140
18 x 77,000lbs = 1,386,000lbs
18 x 4 engines = 72 engines
P-8 + RQ-4
9 x 138,000lbs + 6 x 8,400lbs = 1,292,000 lbs
9 x 2 engines + 6 x 1 engine = 24 engines
The new fleet would have less airplane, and fewer engines. This is a strong predictor of lower maintenance costs.
Aircrew training requirements:
CP-140 18 x 12 crew = 216 crew
P-8 + RQ-4 9x 9 crew + 6 X 12 'crew' = 153 crew
Obviously these numbers are only for proportional comparison of crew requirements. Difficulties present themselves when counting just how many mission crew an RQ-4 has (different way of doign business entirely) so to be conservative I simply gave it the same number as a CP-140. The long and the short of it is that this new fleet should require fewer crew.
Number of Airframes Required:
We can all pretend that this is a consideration, but it isn't. Four C-17s does not meed Canada's strategic lift requirements. But we needed a heavy lift capability, the C-17 was the only viable option, and 4 airframes is what we could afford within the budget allowed. Similarly, Canada needs to be able to kill submarines. There's a VERY short list of planes to do that. We also need to be able to maintain airborne surveillance over all 3 oceans, even if there's shooting going on. I feel that we need more than the 9 + 6 airframes proposed (that's 2 x P-8s per ocean, with one down for maintenance). But we can't afford what's required, so I propose what I think we can afford.
Expected lifespan of "new" airframes, compared to expectation of available manufacturer and principal nation support:
Well, I don't expect the B-737 to go the way of the dodo any time soon. And the RQ-4 is a brand-new aircraft, entering service with the largest air force in the world, our closest neighbor and ally, and a number of our overseas allies as well. One is supported by the world's largest commerical aircraft manufacturer, and the other is a marquee product supported by the world's 4th largest defence company.
Requirements and costs to retrain and retool all required maintenance facilities and maintainers.
The B-737 is one of the most ubiquitously supported aircraft in the world. Almost everything not directly related to the combat systems is available commercial off-the-shelf. Virtually every heavy maintenance outfit in the western world has the required equipment and expertise to maintain it. The RQ-4 is quite a small aircraft, single-engined, and the airframe maintenance requirements are likely to be drawfed by those of either the P-8 or CP-140.
The costs of the retraining and re-tooling for the mission systems is obviously difficult to calculate, with not much public domain information. However, I expect it would be comparable to the costs incurred by re-equipping with any new mission systems, inculding those which would be involved in CP-140 upgrades.
The salient question here would be the decision whether to use existing ground stations in the USA for the RQ-4s, or to build such facilities in Canada. US facilities would be the cheap option, but Canadian facilities would likely be politically feasable. They could be used to buy votes, since they can be built in Canada, and located anywhere.
Infrastructure costs to support new aircraft in all Wing locations:
a) Both the RQ-4 and P-8 have a wider wing-span than the CP-140 (35.4m and 37.6m, vs 30.4m). Not knowing the details of what hanger/carwash facilities exist at various CFBs, I couldn't say whether this is a factor or not. But dollars to doughnuts says that any facilites where it is a problem are likely to be ancient facilites that will have to be replaced regardless.
b) Two maintenance programmes will have to be put in place of a single one, both for airframes and mission systems. I suspect this will be largely offset by the factors listed above (fewer airframes, fewer engines, less mass of airplane flying, commonality with the entire world's airline fleet).
c) ground stations for the RQ-4 would be a major question mark. But this could be done on the cheap, by using US facilities, or on the politically expedient, by having Canadian contractors build them in a contested riding in Quebec.
One major consideration that didn't fit into the template above:
RQ-4s are a real darn handy airplane. There would probably be lots of demand for them from fisheries, Environment Canada, Transport Canada, et al. Similar long-endurance airframes have been used commercially by the communications sector as temporary repeater stations or cell towers. I think it would be do-able to have maybe 2 or 3 of them as full-time CF assets, while the other 3-4 airframes would be federal gov assets, used by the above agencies on their own dime, or leased to commercial entities. Control of them would resort back the CF in times of national emergency. Whether they were operated by CF or civilian crews would be of less significance, as long as other people are footing the bills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's already more than I wanted to write, but I just thought I'd comply with the "Let's Buy These Aircraft" sticky, which was put there for just such an occasion.
.
