[bootlegga]

Now that Harper's government has announced that they are scrapping the Auroras, what do we replace them with? There is a a surprisng variety of potential options. Both the US and UK are building new planes to replace the P-3 Orions in service. There are also a variety of other options that could be put on the table.

The American plane, the P-8a, will also be capable of land surveillance (like J-STARS). The big problem is that the plane hasn't even flown yet and the first planes won't be coming off the assembly lines until 2013 at the earliest.

The British plane, the Nimrod, on the other hand, is a pure ASW platform and will be capable. However, they are reworking/rebuilding existing airframes and it may not be possible to buy new planes, but rather rebuilts originally built in the 1960s/70s.

The Japanese are also building their own replacement for the Orion, the Kawasaki P-X. While expected to be an excellent plane, it will likely be more expensive than even the P-8, simply because of its small production run. There are also questions whether or not they would be willing to export the plane.

A Canadian option is also available, the Bombardier Sentinel R1, will also provide similar capabilities at a slightly cheaper price (about 10%). The big advantage the R-1 has it that it is built in Canada (electronics modified in Texas by Raytheon), is already operational and about a little cheaper than existing competitors. The fact that it is built on a Bombardier Global Express frame means that spare parts should be available for a long time to come too.

The last manned option is the EADS MPA-320, built by Airbus. While it hasn't been adopted by anyone yet and is still considered a prototype, the plane could be quickly built, and as it is built on the Aribus 319/320 airframe, there are hundreds of planes around, so once again, spare parts and replacements would be easy to come by (Air Canada alone has 41 A319s and 41 A320s). The drawback is that Canada would have to buy at least 20, and the government is looking for fewer planes than that.

We could also spend the money (a billion or so) to develop an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) capable of doing all the things that the Aurora or its possible successors can. While it sounds like a lot of money, an UAV with a 8000 km range and many of the capabilities of the Aurora would be very complicated, not just some little kite we could fire in the air and use for a few hours. Even the USAF's vaunted Predator doesn't have a long enough range or payload. One big bonus is that if it was successful, we might be able to export them to allies and reduce costs even further.

[Streaker]

The psychological dimension is important when it comes to showing the flag and asserting sovereignty. For this role, I prefer a plane that looks like it means business, as opposed to something that looks like a generic airliner.

My vote goes for the Nimrod.

[bootlegga]

I like the Nimrod too, but seeing as how they are refurbishing existing airframes, we'd just wind up with a plane that is even older than our Auroras.

Myself, I like the Sentinel or the MPA 319, as both could be largely built in Canada (or at least assembled here - patronage GALORE) and their cost, which is cheaper than all the other planes. If Canada wanted to take a risk, we should spend a ton of money developing an UAV that could do this job and then export it to the rest of NATO. Of course, any possiblity of big aerospace projects were killed with the Arrow.

[DerbyX]

bootlegga wrote:

I like the Nimrod too, but seeing as how they are refurbishing existing airframes, we'd just wind up with a plane that is even older than our Auroras.

Myself, I like the Sentinel or the MPA 319, as both could be largely built in Canada (or at least assembled here - patronage GALORE) and their cost, which is cheaper than all the other planes. If Canada wanted to take a risk, we should spend a ton of money developing an UAV that could do this job and then export it to the rest of NATO. Of course, any possiblity of big aerospace projects were killed with the Arrow.

For a ASW/Recon platform I think we should build it here. Any money spent in Canada means that the gov't is getting a 25% discount and providing jobs. As long as we can produce a vehicle that serves our needs then the made in Canada pride boosts the whol eproject.

[Streaker]

bootlegga wrote:

I like the Nimrod too, but seeing as how they are refurbishing existing airframes, we'd just wind up with a plane that is even older than our Auroras.

My understanding was that the British Nimrod airframes were almost completely remanufactured from the ground up and are for all intents and purposes new aircraft.

Still, if the Nimrod isn't the one, the Kawasaki, Airbus or Boeing would be alright. The Bombardier I'm not so sure about, depending on what kind of armament it would carry.

As for UAVs, they could play a supporting role, but I'd still prefer a manned aircraft to do the bulk of the job, especially in the North.

[Streaker]

Random thought: Airships.

[SigPig]

IMO would it not be worth keeping the auroras up and running until some UAV is available. a UAV is probably the best option for a surveillance aircraft since these days, range of an aircraft is pretty much limited to crew endurance. plus the options that were listed don't seem to offer anything all that new from the auroras (for example the Japanese option looks like they took an aurora and put turbofans on it).

basically what I'm saying is, either design a UAV here in Canada or wait for something that gives us a significant jump in capability. If I HAD to choose from the ones listed i would say the bombardier but i wonder about the range/amount of weapons that could be carried on a plane that size.

[BartSimpson]

Bombadier gets my vote just because it'd be nice to see the CF use homegrown kit.

[BartSimpson]

Streaker wrote:

Random thought: Airships.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cat ... ft/page/2/

Like this?

[Streaker]

Those look interesting, Bart.

[BartSimpson]

Streaker wrote:

Those look interesting, Bart.

It isn't an irrational idea. The only drawback is that for the CF to use them they would have to use hydrogen for maximum lift especially in the extreme cold.

Hydrogen and airships have a dicey track record.

[dog77_1999]

BartSimpson wrote:

Streaker wrote:

Those look interesting, Bart.

It isn't an irrational idea. The only drawback is that for the CF to use them they would have to use hydrogen for maximum lift especially in the extreme cold.

Hydrogen and airships have a dicey track record.

Obviously you don't realize what potential they could bring.



Anyways, it would be interesting to see Canada go into the UAV market. It is still young so there is a chance for Canada to control that industry. However, they would still have to partner with one of the bigger firms if they want to penetrate the US market.

I would go with the Bombadiar or the P-8a, they seem like good affordible options.

[Streaker]

BartSimpson wrote:

Streaker wrote:

Those look interesting, Bart.

It isn't an irrational idea. The only drawback is that for the CF to use them they would have to use hydrogen for maximum lift especially in the extreme cold.

Hydrogen and airships have a dicey track record.

We'll stick with helium.

[SigPig]

Isn't the Global Hawk a capable UAV for surveilance?? Or does it still lack the necessary weapons capacity for maritime patrol? Or would it be possible to use a combination of UAV surveillance with a land based maritime strike plane such as updated auroras? that would lessin the burden on the auroras allowing them to stayin service longer and the Global Hawk is an effective sruveillance plane.

[ridenrain]

If we're just protecting a coastline, tethered landsats would be fine. It could provide sufficient radar coverage and would be minimal cost. I understand Canada is a world leader in satellite radar systems so we could definately make them here.
I like the airship idea but it would be better to position them at high altitude instead.