defence procurement in Canada impossible?

[WPA]

Why is it that in Canada the Government can not purchase new equipment without it becoming a huge issue that end up with late delivery dates of new equipment overprice and outdated before it is even used.?

First some of the Aircraft that DND needs cannot be supplied buy Canadian companies. Case in point the Boeing C17 and the Lockheed 130. I would logical canadian companies should focus on the longterm maintance contract for these aircraft and to ensue the government purchase the technical knowledge so canadian companies could bid on maintance and upgrade project of the aircraft around the world. This has alraedy been proven with the C130 being upgrade for other countries.

The companies and politians should focus on aircraft that canada can supply, build and even market around the world. This you help in the process of reducing the time and cost of buy new equipment for DND and Canada first policy.

Just an Idea

The Buffalo SAR replacement project:

The two planes out there are the C27J Spartan and C295 conversion of the ATR turboprop plan a rivial to the Dash 8 and Bombardier.

This a perfect example where Canada should purchase the Dash 8 300 and Dash 8 400 aircraft. The Dash 8 craft has already proven to operate in all regions in coast to coast to coast. The problem is that Bombardier wants the billion dallors for the contract with out doing any work.

Bomdardier just needs to work with Cassade Aviation from BC and Field Aviation in Toronto that has experence modifining this airfract for special mission for countries around the world.

1) replace the tail section on the Dash 8 with reramp and control surfaces. This should not be had as ATR did it for the C-295.

2) Cassade Aviation and Field Aviation already has experience in cargo converion on dash for increase floor strength, Cargo Doors external changes

3) Dash 8 400 also could should be converted in to a air to air tanker for DND.
This would replace and the Tanker version of the C130 at a lower purchase and operating cost. The Dash 8 400 jet like speed and and reasonabled size make in perfect for a low cost alternate air - to - air for UAV and Maritime patrol aircraft and SAR helecopter that are need in the arttic and that high cost of the standard large tankers.

Cassade aviation has already provemn this possile with the 10000 litre dash 8 400 water bomber. The payload can be improvered installing fuel tanks inside the cabin.

Bombardier would benefit in sell a aircraft like this to DND as the imporved wing landing gear etc. could be used on thier Dash 8 400X plane to be marketed to the regional air lines and reasonable low cost cargo plane to the world. The aircraft would able to operate anywhere in Canada as the Dash 8 is operate all over Canada and the world.

Then there is the replace ment of the C140 maritime patrole aircraft for Canada.

Why is it he the only choice the put out there for Canada is to waste more more on CP140 aircraft that use that hase been use more then the USN version, UVA anf the New Boieng P-8 that high purchase and operating cost put out of the range for Canada other countires defence budgets.

The perfecet aircraft for Canada in the nextgen CRJ1000. The size of the plane is perfect it fit.
The high-low fly envelope better then the 737 for a maritime patrol plane.
Lower purchace and operating cost, and has the space need with extra space for future upgrades.The CRJ 900(test) 1000 has space for extra fuel and a refueling capability can be add. These would allow the plane to be refueled by the Dash 8 400 tank a perfect fit.

The CRJ 1000 can also be converted:
AEW with and airbornce radar.
ground survailance radar.
and also air to air tanker.

[mellow_pilot]

You're kidding right? Tell me this is a joke. Or is this another SFU photoshop project?

Aside from the fact that it's Cascade Aerospace, not cassade, the work proposed would probably be many times more expensive than procuring purpose built aircraft. Putting tanks into a dash, and constructing (then integrating) a completely new empenage are two remarkably differnt things. The aircraft does not have the performance required for the missions you propose. The time it would take to get such a project going, including all the design, construction, modification, testing, development, certification... seriously, this has to be a joke.

[SAR_YQQ]

Or is this another SFU photoshop project?

LOL - thanks for making my morning - my thoughts exactly.

There are no "Made in Canada" aircraft that can fill any of the roles mentioned by the original poster <period>.

[C-FABH]

Why reference the ATR conversion, when the Q400 already serves the maritime patrol/surveillance roles in Australia and Sweden. Every country is different, understandably, but I don't follow why you suggest changing the tail section to make this possible.

As for the DHC-8 or CRJ air-to-air tanker....

[mellow_pilot]

Can't jump from a dash (without modification), also Canada uses the SAR birds differently than a surveillance platform. The sar equipment is palletized, so it can be easily swapped in an out, as the bulk of the sar aircraft are hercs, which have a transport capability. I'm pretty sure that the rear ramp is a requirement of the FWSAR replacement. If I'm not mistaken, they also have to accept NATO standard pallets with clearance to move about the cabin. I'm not sure if the Dash body is big enough for this. SAR_YQQ, care to shed some light?

[WPA]

The Canada does not build planes at all?

The Dash planes are built in Toronto?
The CRJ are built in Quebec?

The i see Bombardier with help by other Canadian companies can not convert their aircraft but Boeing and Airbus can?

[mellow_pilot]

What? Try again in complete sentences...

[TheCheez]

The Canada does not build planes at all?

The Dash planes are built in Toronto?
The CRJ are built in Quebec?

The i see Bombardier with help by other Canadian companies can not convert their aircraft but Boeing and Airbus can?

Do you work for bombardier or one of the companies that would be in partnership with Bombardier to modify said aircraft?
BTW isn't the C27 a Lockheed lead partnership and the other one CASA? Where do Boeing and Airbus come in?

[WJflyer]

Why is it that in Canada the Government can not purchase new equipment without it becoming a huge issue that end up with late delivery dates of new equipment overprice and outdated before it is even used.?

First some of the Aircraft that DND needs cannot be supplied buy Canadian companies. Case in point the Boeing C17 and the Lockheed 130. I would logical canadian companies should focus on the longterm maintance contract for these aircraft and to ensue the government purchase the technical knowledge so canadian companies could bid on maintance and upgrade project of the aircraft around the world. This has alraedy been proven with the C130 being upgrade for other countries.

The companies and politians should focus on aircraft that canada can supply, build and even market around the world. This you help in the process of reducing the time and cost of buy new equipment for DND and Canada first policy.

Just an Idea

The Buffalo SAR replacement project:

The two planes out there are the C27J Spartan and C295 conversion of the ATR turboprop plan a rivial to the Dash 8 and Bombardier.

This a perfect example where Canada should purchase the Dash 8 300 and Dash 8 400 aircraft. The Dash 8 craft has already proven to operate in all regions in coast to coast to coast. The problem is that Bombardier wants the billion dallors for the contract with out doing any work.

Bomdardier just needs to work with Cassade Aviation from BC and Field Aviation in Toronto that has experence modifining this airfract for special mission for countries around the world.

1) replace the tail section on the Dash 8 with reramp and control surfaces. This should not be had as ATR did it for the C-295.

2) Cassade Aviation and Field Aviation already has experience in cargo converion on dash for increase floor strength, Cargo Doors external changes

3) Dash 8 400 also could should be converted in to a air to air tanker for DND.
This would replace and the Tanker version of the C130 at a lower purchase and operating cost. The Dash 8 400 jet like speed and and reasonabled size make in perfect for a low cost alternate air - to - air for UAV and Maritime patrol aircraft and SAR helecopter that are need in the arttic and that high cost of the standard large tankers.

Cassade aviation has already provemn this possile with the 10000 litre dash 8 400 water bomber. The payload can be improvered installing fuel tanks inside the cabin.

Bombardier would benefit in sell a aircraft like this to DND as the imporved wing landing gear etc. could be used on thier Dash 8 400X plane to be marketed to the regional air lines and reasonable low cost cargo plane to the world. The aircraft would able to operate anywhere in Canada as the Dash 8 is operate all over Canada and the world.

Then there is the replace ment of the C140 maritime patrole aircraft for Canada.

Why is it he the only choice the put out there for Canada is to waste more more on CP140 aircraft that use that hase been use more then the USN version, UVA anf the New Boieng P-8 that high purchase and operating cost put out of the range for Canada other countires defence budgets.

The perfecet aircraft for Canada in the nextgen CRJ1000. The size of the plane is perfect it fit.
The high-low fly envelope better then the 737 for a maritime patrol plane.
Lower purchace and operating cost, and has the space need with extra space for future upgrades.The CRJ 900(test) 1000 has space for extra fuel and a refueling capability can be add. These would allow the plane to be refueled by the Dash 8 400 tank a perfect fit.

The CRJ 1000 can also be converted:
AEW with and airbornce radar.
ground survailance radar.
and also air to air tanker.

Big FAIL.


1. The EADS-CASA C-295 is based off the CN-235, which was a joint designed product between CASA (then not part of EADS, as EADS did not exist then), and IPTN in Indonesia.

2. FWSAR requirements state that an aircraft must have the basic following described basic capabilities:
o Fast response – Cruise speed of around 250 knots or faster.
o Adequate search capability in varied terrain – Excellent cockpit visability, with plenty of windows to allow pilots to see out at all angles. Also, ability to fly low speed STOL flights in mountain valleys, of which both the contenders are technically capable of doing (one better than the other).
o Adequate cabin size and access – In addition to being able to accommodate the necessary palletized search and rescue equipment, the cabin must be large enough for rescue personnel to move around, safely don their personal gear, and parachute from the aircraft. That means be able to fit a fully loaded 463L master pallet, and still have enough room to work around the pallet. Furthermore, there is a need for a rear ramp, to allow for jumpers and airdrops. Bombardier was trying to say that a rear ramp was not needed, and that we didn't need to jump out of airplanes or drop cargo from the airplane.

3. The Dash 8 does not have the range to operate out to the very edges of the EEZ and stay there for a long period of time. Nor does it have the capability to fly long patrols from Greenwood to the Arctic to conduct patrols out there. In order to provide the level of coverage that we want with a MPA based off the Dash 8, we would first have to buy more, and secondly, build more bases across the coast. So in the end, we would have to spend way more to do the same job. We need range, and lots of it.

4. Replacement of the Aurora is not only about surface surveillance. If it was all about surface surveillance, we would have moved forward with HALE, and replaced the Aurora already. It is also about subsurface surveillance, such as sub hunting. That's why we need the most capable replacement we can get for the Aurora's; that just happens to be the Boeing P-8 MMA. It is a direct replacement in terms of capability.

5. You do know how expensive it is to design a MPA from scratch, or even modify an existing aircraft? Not only do we have a limited customer (us, with no more than 20 airframes), which will drive up per unit costs, it is a strategic orphan; no one else will buy it, no one else will support it.

6. Using the Dash 8 as a aerial refueling tanker replacement for the C-130? We already have a replacement. It's called the CC-150 Polaris tanker (Airbus A310 MRTT). Furthermore, think of the reasons why most aerial refueling tankers of most air forces that do own them are designed from large airplanes; they need both long range, and a large fuel load.

7. The only reason why the Bombardier Global Express is being considered is to A: please Quebec, and B: make the army guys happy as they want a aerial battlefield radar, like ASTOR or JSTARS. Other than that, the airplane, from those in the maritime patrol community, is totally unsuitable for maritime patrol, and would cost a lot of money to design just for us.


I get very pissed off when people start talking out of their asses when they do not know a thing or two about how our military works. You just earned my ire for doing this.

[WJflyer]

And I forgot to mention that it is because of people like you that procurement runs so freaking slow... they think they have a solution, when in reality, they are suggesting more pork barrel for substandard pieces of equipment, which will slow down a procurement project, and if selected, put lives at risk unnecessarily.

[Valhalla]

3. The Dash 8 does not have the range to operate out to the very edges of the EEZ and stay there for a long period of time. Nor does it have the capability to fly long patrols from Greenwood to the Arctic to conduct patrols out there. In order to provide the level of coverage that we want with a MPA based off the Dash 8, we would first have to buy more, and secondly, build more bases across the coast. So in the end, we would have to spend way more to do the same job. We need range, and lots of it.

The Australian Survailence Dash 8's are capable of being airborne for up to 14 hours with long range tanks. Australia is a pretty big country too... And the Q400 with fuselage tanks can fly patrols at jet like speeds with the same endurance. No, it's not a sub-hunter, but it will do surveilance and it will do aerial drops with it's air-operable rear cargo door.

5. You do know how expensive it is to design a MPA from scratch, or even modify an existing aircraft? Not only do we have a limited customer (us, with no more than 20 airframes), which will drive up per unit costs, it is a strategic orphan; no one else will buy it, no one else will support it.

Dash 8 MPA is already in service all around the world - unlike the P-8, which will rely on "future technologies".

Not trying to be a shit-disturber, but get your facts right before you condem good Canadian technology that Australia, US Homeland Security, Japan, Sweden and Iceland have all embraced.

[2R]

Do not worry once we are attacked and actual harm done to the three trillion dollars of Canadian Real estate.The entire House of Parliament will solve these issues as quickly as they solved that chalk river thingy

[WJflyer]

3. The Dash 8 does not have the range to operate out to the very edges of the EEZ and stay there for a long period of time. Nor does it have the capability to fly long patrols from Greenwood to the Arctic to conduct patrols out there. In order to provide the level of coverage that we want with a MPA based off the Dash 8, we would first have to buy more, and secondly, build more bases across the coast. So in the end, we would have to spend way more to do the same job. We need range, and lots of it.

The Australian Survailence Dash 8's are capable of being airborne for up to 14 hours with long range tanks. Australia is a pretty big country too... And the Q400 with fuselage tanks can fly patrols at jet like speeds with the same endurance. No, it's not a sub-hunter, but it will do surveilance and it will do aerial drops with it's air-operable rear cargo door.

Long range tanks eat into internal space. More range means less equipment can be carried. We want a DIRECT replacement for the Aurora fleet. That means anti-sub warfare capabilities, ability to carry weapons, etc.

You think we are going to buy a specialized fleet? Forget it. The CF is already stretched thin on flight crew and maintainers as it is without having to operate specialized fleets. The primary mission of the Aurora's is submarine hunting and warfighting. The fact that we are conducting lesser missions, such as fishery and pollution patrols is just icing on the cake. And when a conflict flares up, we don't freaking care about these lesser missions. All we care about is sinking submarines and hunting enemy warships. One therefore ends up with two or more fleets and a higher overall cost, as one still needs a certain minimum number of fully-capable combat aircraft, currently under-employed in peacetime, and a bunch of unnecessary lesser aircraft buzzing around or wasting tarmac space too.

We are not looking at replacing a coast guard airplane but an air force warplane. Theres more to the CP-140's mission than looking at who is out there and looking for polluters; part of the job also includes if necessary, shooting at someone.

What the Australian Coastwatch does and what we do in the Aurora's is not even in the same ballpark. Heck, it is not even the same sport; Coastwatch is more like pee-wee baseball while the Aurora's mission can be compared to NHL hockey.

Furthermore, the Dash 8 has zero room for growth. P-8 is designed with tons of room for growth, which means in the future, there is less of a worry if we have to integrate new sensors or computers into the platform as there is plenty of space set aside to install whatever comes around.

5. You do know how expensive it is to design a MPA from scratch, or even modify an existing aircraft? Not only do we have a limited customer (us, with no more than 20 airframes), which will drive up per unit costs, it is a strategic orphan; no one else will buy it, no one else will support it.

Dash 8 MPA is already in service all around the world - unlike the P-8, which will rely on "future technologies".

Not trying to be a @#$!-disturber, but get your facts right before you condem good Canadian technology that Australia, US Homeland Security, Japan, Sweden and Iceland have all embraced.

[/quote]

Check your facts.

P-8 is currently using off-the-shelf technology. The technology and sensors being installed are in service with the latest blocks of the USN P-3C Orions, however, it is integration of these sensors into a new open architecture suite that is something that is under development. However, Open Mission System Architecture is more future-proof; it allows sensors to be more easily swapped or added as time goes by.

And that good old Canadian technology has burned us really badly in the past, see ADATS, LSVW, MLVW, , etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. Furthermore, some of the good old Canadian companies are doing or had done really shoddy work for us; often to the point where had it been a foreign company, there would be a scandal over it. Everything from prematurely rusting vehicles, improper wiring, improperly placed fuel pumps, plastic liners in a fuel tank (gasoline and diesel eats plastic), etc. Some of the work done frankly speaking, is a safety hazard, and a accident waiting to happen. If we actually done a full blown government audit of some of these companies work, the results of that audit will scare you. And these companies include Bombardier and Cascade Aerospace, two of the worst offenders in this regard.

How long will it take for these companies to develop what we ask of them? Hint: a very long time, from the looks of how the AIMP is going (it's seriously over-budget and delayed so badly, we pretty much have tossed out the timeline altogether, as IMP is such an inept and incompetent company because they never have finished a CF project on time and on budget). We need replacements for some of our equipment TODAY.

[sigmet77]

I like the 'idea' of Canada first, the rest of the post is...well I guess you just have to laugh sometimes.

[Spokes]

Not trying to be a @#$!-disturber, but get your facts right before you condem good Canadian technology that Australia, US Homeland Security, Japan, Sweden and Iceland have all embraced.

I doubt you will find someone more up on thir facts in these types of things than WJFlyer. Maybe you should take some of your own advice.

[Valhalla]

I doubt you will find someone more up on thir facts in these types of things than WJFlyer. Maybe you should take some of your own advice.

No doubt, WJFlyer seems very knowlegable regarding these things, and if you need a sub-hunter, than he's probably right - the P-8 would be a fantasitc airplane. But it would make a hell-of-an expensive maritime patrol aircraft compared to the Dash 8 MPA. But maybe cost doesn't really matter...

[WPA]

Why is it that in Canada the Government can not purchase new equipment without it becoming a huge issue that end up with late delivery dates of new equipment overprice and outdated before it is even used.?

First some of the Aircraft that DND needs cannot be supplied buy Canadian companies. Case in point the Boeing C17 and the Lockheed 130. I would logical Canadian companies should focus on the long term maintenance contract for these aircraft and to ensue the government purchase the technical knowledge so Canadian companies could bid on maintenance and upgrade project of the aircraft around the world. This has already been proven with the C130 being upgrade for other countries.

The companies and politicians should focus on aircraft that Canada can supply, build and even market around the world. This you help in the process of reducing the time and cost of buy new equipment for DND and Canada first policy.

Just an Idea

The Buffalo SAR replacement project:

The two planes out there are the C27J Spartan and C295 conversion of the ATR turboprop plan a rival to the Dash 8 and Bombardier.

This a perfect example where Canada should purchase the Dash 8 300 and Dash 8 400 aircraft. The Dash 8 craft has already proven to operate in all regions in coast to coast to coast. The problem is that Bombardier wants the billion dollars for the contract with out doing any work.

Bombardier just needs to work with Cascade Aviation from BC and Field Aviation in Toronto that has experience modifining this aircraft for special mission for countries around the world.

1) replace the tail section on the Dash 8 with rerap and control surfaces. This should not be had as ATR did it for the C-295.

2) Cascade Aviation and Field Aviation already has experience in cargo conversion on dash for increase floor strength, Cargo Doors external changes

3) Dash 8 400 also could should be converted in to a air to air tanker for DND.
This would replace and the Tanker version of the C130 at a lower purchase and operating cost. The Dash 8 400 jet like speed and and reasonable size make in perfect for a low cost alternate air - to - air for UAV and Maritime patrol aircraft and SAR helicopter that are need in the arctic and that high cost of the standard large tankers.

Cascade aviation has already proven this possible with the 10000 litre dash 8 400 water bomber. The payload can be improved installing fuel tanks inside the cabin.

Bombardier would benefit in sell a aircraft like this to DND as the improved wing landing gear etc. could be used on their Dash 8 400X plane to be marketed to the regional air lines and reasonable low cost cargo plane to the world. The aircraft would able to operate anywhere in Canada as the Dash 8 is operate all over Canada and the world.

Then there is the replacement of the C140 maritime patrol aircraft for Canada.

Why is it he the only choice the put out there for Canada is to waste more more on CP140 aircraft that use that have been use more then the USN version, UVA and the New Boeing P-8 that high purchase and operating cost put out of the range for Canada other countries defence budgets.

The perfect aircraft for Canada in the next gen CRJ1000. The size of the plane is perfect it fit.
The high-low fly envelope better then the 737 for a maritime patrol plane.
Lower purchase and operating cost, and has the space need with extra space for future upgrades.The CRJ 900(test) 1000 has space for extra fuel and a refueling capability can be add. These would allow the plane to be refueled by the Dash 8 400 tank a perfect fit.

The CRJ 1000 can also be converted:
AEW with and airborne radar.
ground surveillance radar.
and also air to air tanker.

Big FAIL.


1. The EADS-CASA C-295 is based off the CN-235, which was a joint designed product between CASA (then not part of EADS, as EADS did not exist then), and IPTN in Indonesia.

2. FWSAR requirements state that an aircraft must have the basic following described basic capabilities:
o Fast response – Cruise speed of around 250 knots or faster.
o Adequate search capability in varied terrain – Excellent cockpit visibility, with plenty of windows to allow pilots to see out at all angles. Also, ability to fly low speed STOL flights in mountain valleys, of which both the contenders are technically capable of doing (one better than the other).
o Adequate cabin size and access – In addition to being able to accommodate the necessary palletized search and rescue equipment, the cabin must be large enough for rescue personnel to move around, safely don their personal gear, and parachute from the aircraft. That means be able to fit a fully loaded 463L master pallet, and still have enough room to work around the pallet. Furthermore, there is a need for a rear ramp, to allow for jumpers and airdrops. Bombardier was trying to say that a rear ramp was not needed, and that we didn't need to jump out of airplanes or drop cargo from the airplane.

3. The Dash 8 does not have the range to operate out to the very edges of the EEZ and stay there for a long period of time. Nor does it have the capability to fly long patrols from Greenwood to the Arctic to conduct patrols out there. In order to provide the level of coverage that we want with a MPA based off the Dash 8, we would first have to buy more, and secondly, build more bases across the coast. So in the end, we would have to spend way more to do the same job. We need range, and lots of it.

4. Replacement of the Aurora is not only about surface surveillance. If it was all about surface surveillance, we would have moved forward with HALE, and replaced the Aurora already. It is also about subsurface surveillance, such as sub hunting. That's why we need the most capable replacement we can get for the Aurora's; that just happens to be the Boeing P-8 MMA. It is a direct replacement in terms of capability.

5. You do know how expensive it is to design a MPA from scratch, or even modify an existing aircraft? Not only do we have a limited customer (us, with no more than 20 airframes), which will drive up per unit costs, it is a strategic orphan; no one else will buy it, no one else will support it.

6. Using the Dash 8 as a aerial refueling tanker replacement for the C-130? We already have a replacement. It's called the CC-150 Polaris tanker (Airbus A310 MRTT). Furthermore, think of the reasons why most aerial refueling tankers of most air forces that do own them are designed from large airplanes; they need both long range, and a large fuel load.

7. The only reason why the Bombardier Global Express is being considered is to A: please Quebec, and B: make the army guys happy as they want a aerial battlefield radar, like ASTOR or JSTARS. Other than that, the airplane, from those in the maritime patrol community, is totally unsuitable for maritime patrol, and would cost a lot of money to design just for us.


I get very pissed off when people start talking out of their asses when they do not know a thing or two about how our military works. You just earned my ire for doing this.

WOW OKAY,

Did not mean to piss you off.

I do not work for any of the companies.

I am a guy who reads and watch shows on the topic.

I am just interest why things always get screwed up.

I 100% support the purchase of four the C17 (should arrange to purchase 2 to 4 more for the simple fact almost any mission the DND will be ask to do will across an ocean)

However, I am not sold on the Boeing P-8 MMA as the best option for Canada.

Bombardier CRJ900 or CRJ1000 might be a better fit for Canada even if it will not be able to carry the same weapons loads as the P-8. CRJ would be able carry the sensors need to do the same job. CRJ series of jets have sold very well around the world. This should help to reduce over all cost of operating cost of the planes, supply of parts...?

What is in the harm of taking the new mission equipment from the Aurora upgrade project that is sitting collect dust in some storage area and create CRJ900 test aircraft.

[WJflyer]

I doubt you will find someone more up on thir facts in these types of things than WJFlyer. Maybe you should take some of your own advice.

No doubt, WJFlyer seems very knowlegable regarding these things, and if you need a sub-hunter, than he's probably right - the P-8 would be a fantasitc airplane. But it would make a hell-of-an expensive maritime patrol aircraft compared to the Dash 8 MPA. But maybe cost doesn't really matter...

It was decided long ago that ASW is a core capability that must be maintained at all costs. The maritime patrol community will not be giving that up; and even if they were it would be over their dead bodies.

[EI-EIO]

Haven't we been here before?

DND moves to single source FWSAR platform
http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 49&t=25928

[mellow_pilot]

The Australian Survailence Dash 8's are capable of being airborne for up to 14 hours with long range tanks. Australia is a pretty big country too... And the Q400 with fuselage tanks can fly patrols at jet like speeds with the same endurance. No, it's not a sub-hunter, but it will do surveilance and it will do aerial drops with it's air-operable rear cargo door.

Rear door eh? So some guy is gonna huck sono-buoys out the back at 200 kts over the north Atlantic?
Exactly where on this bird are you going to stow the harpoons, or torpedoes? You gonna get the FE to throw a mk48 out the back door too?

The Forces operate MPA, not MSA. Patrol vs surveillance. It's a huge difference in capability. Watching a bank robbery with camcorder in hand does not make you a cop.
Maritime patrol is just a nice way of saying maritime combat. I really don't want to send guys to war in a Dash 8. You're not saving any money by buying cheap. You pay for what you get. The current modernization of the Forces places emphasis (as far as the Air Force is concerned) on capabilities, not platforms. It's a small nuance for some, but it has real implications. We aren't talking about buying an airplane, we're talking about buying what the airplane can do. The Dash 8 just can't DO.

The problem is that you have people who read and watch shows, and get bogus info from bogus sources. Then they share these bogus ideas and before you know it the general public buys the crap that the companies are selling through the media. Like when the C295 was losing the bid for the FWSAR, they rose such a stink that the critical program was shelved. Partly because of other pressing requirements, politics and partly because CASA actually convinced people that it's aircraft, while scoring lower in almost all respects, was the better choice and they were getting a raw deal from the gov.

Buying more C17s, horrible idea. Ignoring their enormous sticker price, you have to house them, which means new huge hangars, support facilities, support equipment, etc.

What we need is for people to understand that just because a company with a vested interest says that their product is what we need, does not make it so.

[WJflyer]

Why is it that in Canada the Government can not purchase new equipment without it becoming a huge issue that end up with late delivery dates of new equipment overprice and outdated before it is even used.?

First some of the Aircraft that DND needs cannot be supplied buy Canadian companies. Case in point the Boeing C17 and the Lockheed 130. I would logical Canadian companies should focus on the long term maintenance contract for these aircraft and to ensue the government purchase the technical knowledge so Canadian companies could bid on maintenance and upgrade project of the aircraft around the world. This has already been proven with the C130 being upgrade for other countries.

The companies and politicians should focus on aircraft that Canada can supply, build and even market around the world. This you help in the process of reducing the time and cost of buy new equipment for DND and Canada first policy.

Just an Idea

The Buffalo SAR replacement project:

The two planes out there are the C27J Spartan and C295 conversion of the ATR turboprop plan a rival to the Dash 8 and Bombardier.

This a perfect example where Canada should purchase the Dash 8 300 and Dash 8 400 aircraft. The Dash 8 craft has already proven to operate in all regions in coast to coast to coast. The problem is that Bombardier wants the billion dollars for the contract with out doing any work.

Bombardier just needs to work with Cascade Aviation from BC and Field Aviation in Toronto that has experience modifining this aircraft for special mission for countries around the world.

1) replace the tail section on the Dash 8 with rerap and control surfaces. This should not be had as ATR did it for the C-295.

2) Cascade Aviation and Field Aviation already has experience in cargo conversion on dash for increase floor strength, Cargo Doors external changes

3) Dash 8 400 also could should be converted in to a air to air tanker for DND.
This would replace and the Tanker version of the C130 at a lower purchase and operating cost. The Dash 8 400 jet like speed and and reasonable size make in perfect for a low cost alternate air - to - air for UAV and Maritime patrol aircraft and SAR helicopter that are need in the arctic and that high cost of the standard large tankers.

Cascade aviation has already proven this possible with the 10000 litre dash 8 400 water bomber. The payload can be improved installing fuel tanks inside the cabin.

Bombardier would benefit in sell a aircraft like this to DND as the improved wing landing gear etc. could be used on their Dash 8 400X plane to be marketed to the regional air lines and reasonable low cost cargo plane to the world. The aircraft would able to operate anywhere in Canada as the Dash 8 is operate all over Canada and the world.

Then there is the replacement of the C140 maritime patrol aircraft for Canada.

Why is it he the only choice the put out there for Canada is to waste more more on CP140 aircraft that use that have been use more then the USN version, UVA and the New Boeing P-8 that high purchase and operating cost put out of the range for Canada other countries defence budgets.

The perfect aircraft for Canada in the next gen CRJ1000. The size of the plane is perfect it fit.
The high-low fly envelope better then the 737 for a maritime patrol plane.
Lower purchase and operating cost, and has the space need with extra space for future upgrades.The CRJ 900(test) 1000 has space for extra fuel and a refueling capability can be add. These would allow the plane to be refueled by the Dash 8 400 tank a perfect fit.

The CRJ 1000 can also be converted:
AEW with and airborne radar.
ground surveillance radar.
and also air to air tanker.

Big FAIL.


1. The EADS-CASA C-295 is based off the CN-235, which was a joint designed product between CASA (then not part of EADS, as EADS did not exist then), and IPTN in Indonesia.

2. FWSAR requirements state that an aircraft must have the basic following described basic capabilities:
o Fast response – Cruise speed of around 250 knots or faster.
o Adequate search capability in varied terrain – Excellent cockpit visibility, with plenty of windows to allow pilots to see out at all angles. Also, ability to fly low speed STOL flights in mountain valleys, of which both the contenders are technically capable of doing (one better than the other).
o Adequate cabin size and access – In addition to being able to accommodate the necessary palletized search and rescue equipment, the cabin must be large enough for rescue personnel to move around, safely don their personal gear, and parachute from the aircraft. That means be able to fit a fully loaded 463L master pallet, and still have enough room to work around the pallet. Furthermore, there is a need for a rear ramp, to allow for jumpers and airdrops. Bombardier was trying to say that a rear ramp was not needed, and that we didn't need to jump out of airplanes or drop cargo from the airplane.

3. The Dash 8 does not have the range to operate out to the very edges of the EEZ and stay there for a long period of time. Nor does it have the capability to fly long patrols from Greenwood to the Arctic to conduct patrols out there. In order to provide the level of coverage that we want with a MPA based off the Dash 8, we would first have to buy more, and secondly, build more bases across the coast. So in the end, we would have to spend way more to do the same job. We need range, and lots of it.

4. Replacement of the Aurora is not only about surface surveillance. If it was all about surface surveillance, we would have moved forward with HALE, and replaced the Aurora already. It is also about subsurface surveillance, such as sub hunting. That's why we need the most capable replacement we can get for the Aurora's; that just happens to be the Boeing P-8 MMA. It is a direct replacement in terms of capability.

5. You do know how expensive it is to design a MPA from scratch, or even modify an existing aircraft? Not only do we have a limited customer (us, with no more than 20 airframes), which will drive up per unit costs, it is a strategic orphan; no one else will buy it, no one else will support it.

6. Using the Dash 8 as a aerial refueling tanker replacement for the C-130? We already have a replacement. It's called the CC-150 Polaris tanker (Airbus A310 MRTT). Furthermore, think of the reasons why most aerial refueling tankers of most air forces that do own them are designed from large airplanes; they need both long range, and a large fuel load.

7. The only reason why the Bombardier Global Express is being considered is to A: please Quebec, and B: make the army guys happy as they want a aerial battlefield radar, like ASTOR or JSTARS. Other than that, the airplane, from those in the maritime patrol community, is totally unsuitable for maritime patrol, and would cost a lot of money to design just for us.


I get very pissed off when people start talking out of their asses when they do not know a thing or two about how our military works. You just earned my ire for doing this.

WOW OKAY,

Did not mean to piss you off.

I do not work for any of the companies.

I am a guy who reads and watch shows on the topic.

I am just interest why things always get screwed up.

I 100% support the purchase of four the C17 (should arrange to purchase 2 to 4 more for the simple fact almost any mission the DND will be ask to do will across an ocean)

However, I am not sold on the Boeing P-8 MMA as the best option for Canada.

Bombardier CRJ900 or CRJ1000 might be a better fit for Canada even if it will not be able to carry the same weapons loads as the P-8. CRJ would be able carry the sensors need to do the same job. CRJ series of jets have sold very well around the world. This should help to reduce over all cost of operating cost of the planes, supply of parts...?

What is in the harm of taking the new mission equipment from the Aurora upgrade project that is sitting collect dust in some storage area and create CRJ900 test aircraft.

1. You tell me what is the most capable maritime patrol aircraft out there finishing development or currently in production. Hint: It ain't Canadian, its American.

2. Range is IMPORTANT! The Aurora's can easily fly, say, from Vancouver to Winnipeg, circle Winnipeg for 3-4 hours and then fly right back to Vancouver, all on one tank of gas. P-8 can do the same. No model of the CRJ can do that. We use the range of the Aurora's the max virtually every time we fly them. We will not accept a major decrease in range.

3. Some of the equipment for AIMP is not even sitting in a warehouse. For example, the radars are not even here in Canada yet. The same can be said about the radios, the navigation systems, etc... And to ask Bombardier to do the mod work to develop a maritime patrol version of their aircraft is just asking for trouble.

[mellow_pilot]

Bombardier CRJ900 or CRJ1000 might be a better fit for Canada even if it will not be able to carry the same weapons loads as the P-8. CRJ would be able carry the sensors need to do the same job. CRJ series of jets have sold very well around the world. This should help to reduce over all cost of operating cost of the planes, supply of parts...?

As opposed to the B737, of which there are only a handful in operation. This makes 737 parts and servicing nearly impossible to come by...

[WPA]

WOW OKAY,

Did not mean to piss you off.

I do not work for any of the companies.

I am a guy who reads and watch shows on the topic.

I am just interest why things always get screwed up.

I 100% support the purchase of four the C17 (should arrange to purchase 2 to 4 more for the simple fact almost any mission the DND will be ask to do will across an ocean)

However, I am not sold on the Boeing P-8 MMA as the best option for Canada.

Bombardier CRJ900 or CRJ1000 might be a better fit for Canada even if it will not be able to carry the same weapons loads as the P-8. CRJ would be able carry the sensors need to do the same job. CRJ series of jets have sold very well around the world. This should help to reduce over all cost of operating cost of the planes, supply of parts...?

What is in the harm of taking the new mission equipment from the Aurora upgrade project that is sitting collect dust in some storage area and create CRJ900 test aircraft.[/quote]

1. You tell me what is the most capable maritime patrol aircraft out there finishing development or currently in production. Hint: It ain't Canadian, its American.

2. Range is IMPORTANT! The Aurora's can easily fly, say, from Vancouver to Winnipeg, circle Winnipeg for 3-4 hours and then fly right back to Vancouver, all on one tank of gas. P-8 can do the same. No model of the CRJ can do that. We use the range of the Aurora's the max virtually every time we fly them. We will not accept a major decrease in range.

3. Some of the equipment for AIMP is not even sitting in a warehouse. For example, the radars are not even here in Canada yet. The same can be said about the radios, the navigation systems, etc... And to ask Bombardier to do the mod work to develop a maritime patrol version of their aircraft is just asking for trouble.[/quote]


Sorry still not sold!

Range is Important !

I look up the Boeing and Bombardier web site and looked up the range of the aircraft.

Boeing P-8

General Characteristics:
Propulsion: Two CFM567
engines providing 27,000
pounds thrust each
Length: 123.3 feet (37.59 meters)
Wing Span: 123.6 feet (37.64 meters)
Height: 42.1 feet (12.83 meters)
Maximum Takeoff Gross Weight: 187,700 pounds (85,139 kilograms)
Speed: 490 knots (564 mi/h, 789 km/h)
Range: 1,200+ nautical miles, with 4 hours on station
(1,381 miles, 2,222 kilometers)
Ceiling: 41,000 feet (12,496 meters)
Crew: 9


Bombardier CRJ900

Range
(220 lb per pax, MTOW, LRC with reserves)
Maximum range at LRC
CRJ900 NextGen (88 pax) 1,304 NM 1,500 SM 2,414 km
CRJ900 NextGen ER (88 pax) 1,557 NM 1,792 SM 2,883 km
CRJ900 NextGen LR (88 pax) 1,804 NM 2,076 SM 3,341 km
Speed Mach kts mph km/h
High cruise speed 0.83 476 548 882
Long-range cruise speed 0.78 447 515 827


The P-8 has a range of 1200NM with a 4 hour on station time
CRJ900LR has a range of 1200NM with a 604NM on station time. I am not going to work actual time, however the plane does have an on station time.

However, there is one problem of Canada in get the P-8 in time to be used. The target date for the full rate production for the P-8 to be signed off by the US GOV. is 2012.

Plus it is unlikely that Canada would be getting any of the early produced planes because the US fleet of P-3C are in serious bad shape with the Navy grounding 30 planes this year alone.

It would make more sense for Canada to convert the CRJ900 with AIMP equipment that has been report as paid for and wait to be installed. If the mission equipment is not on hand yet is not the point. A CRJ900 set for MMA duty should be done long before Canada can buy the P-8.

P-8 price tag is stated 150 million dollars with out delays or cost overruns on systems.
CRJ900 with a passenger cabin is roughly 36 million. The mission system contract has already been sign and developed or finishing development.
Canada should and the main word is Should be able to produce a CRJ900 some where under 100 dollars is good for Canada and atractive to other countries.

[WJflyer]

Sorry still not sold!

Range is Important !

I look up the Boeing and Bombardier web site and looked up the range of the aircraft.

Boeing P-8

General Characteristics:
Propulsion: Two CFM567
engines providing 27,000
pounds thrust each
Length: 123.3 feet (37.59 meters)
Wing Span: 123.6 feet (37.64 meters)
Height: 42.1 feet (12.83 meters)
Maximum Takeoff Gross Weight: 187,700 pounds (85,139 kilograms)
Speed: 490 knots (564 mi/h, 789 km/h)
Range: 1,200+ nautical miles, with 4 hours on station
(1,381 miles, 2,222 kilometers)
Ceiling: 41,000 feet (12,496 meters)
Crew: 9


Bombardier CRJ900

Range
(220 ** per pax, MTOW, LRC with reserves)
Maximum range at LRC
CRJ900 NextGen (88 pax) 1,304 NM 1,500 SM 2,414 km
CRJ900 NextGen ER (88 pax) 1,557 NM 1,792 SM 2,883 km
CRJ900 NextGen LR (88 pax) 1,804 NM 2,076 SM 3,341 km
Speed Mach kts mph km/h
High cruise speed 0.83 476 548 882
Long-range cruise speed 0.78 447 515 827


The P-8 has a range of 1200NM with a 4 hour on station time
CRJ900LR has a range of 1200NM with a 604NM on station time. I am not going to work actual time, however the plane does have an on station time.

However, there is one problem of Canada in get the P-8 in time to be used. The target date for the full rate production for the P-8 to be signed off by the US GOV. is 2012.

Plus it is unlikely that Canada would be getting any of the early produced planes because the US fleet of P-3C are in serious bad shape with the Navy grounding 30 planes this year alone.

It would make more sense for Canada to convert the CRJ900 with AIMP equipment that has been report as paid for and wait to be installed. If the mission equipment is not on hand yet is not the point. A CRJ900 set for MMA duty should be done long before Canada can buy the P-8.

P-8 price tag is stated 150 million dollars with out delays or cost overruns on systems.
CRJ900 with a passenger cabin is roughly 36 million. The mission system contract has already been sign and developed or finishing development.
Canada should and the main word is Should be able to produce a CRJ900 some where under 100 dollars is good for Canada and atractive to other countries.

1. CRJ cannot carry the same equipment load nor the same weapons load as the current Aurora's and the future P-8. We are technically running out of floor space in the Aurora's. We can't take a reduction in floor space. Furthermore, the Aurora can carry a good amount of equipment and weapons; where are you going to find the space to put up to 16 torpedoes, and over 80 sonobuoys?

2. 1200+ nautical miles plus 4 hours loiter time all at low altitude, the most inefficient altitude range to fly at. 4 hours on station time is almost equivalent to 1200 nautical miles. That means a total range at low altitude of over 3600 nautical miles; much longer than the CRJ. Furthermore, we measure range in military aircraft differently compared to civilian aircraft; we measure how far an airplane can fly out and back. Civilian aircraft just go in one direction. So in reality, your CRJ can only fly 600 nautical miles with less than 2 hours of loiter time, at HIGH ALTITUDE. Fly at low altitude, and your range is slashed in half again, to 300 nautical miles with less than an hour of loiter time.

3. I will tell you that the time to develop a new maritime patrol aircraft from scratch will take at least 4-5 years. We will do fine for a while; we will restructure the time being flown, and the government is funding ASLEP, which will fully replace the wings and tails on the Aurora's, improving serviceability and allowing us to fly to around 2015. We can wait for Poseidon because the government has funded ASLEP. Before we couldn't, because the previous government canned funding for ASLEP.

[Spokes]

1. CRJ cannot carry the same equipment load nor the same weapons load as the current Aurora's and the future P-8. We are technically running out of floor space in the Aurora's. We can't take a reduction in floor space. Furthermore, the Aurora can carry a good amount of equipment and weapons; where are you going to find the space to put up to 16 torpedoes, and over 80 sonobuoys?

2. 1200+ nautical miles plus 4 hours loiter time all at low altitude, the most inefficient altitude range to fly at. 4 hours on station time is almost equivalent to 1200 nautical miles. That means a total range at low altitude of over 3600 nautical miles; much longer than the CRJ. Furthermore, we measure range in military aircraft differently compared to civilian aircraft; we measure how far an airplane can fly out and back. Civilian aircraft just go in one direction. So in reality, your CRJ can only fly 600 nautical miles with less than 2 hours of loiter time, at HIGH ALTITUDE. Fly at low altitude, and your range is slashed in half again, to 300 nautical miles with less than an hour of loiter time.

3. I will tell you that the time to develop a new maritime patrol aircraft from scratch will take at least 4-5 years. We will do fine for a while; we will restructure the time being flown, and the government is funding ASLEP, which will fully replace the wings and tails on the Aurora's, improving serviceability and allowing us to fly to around 2015. We can wait for Poseidon because the government has funded ASLEP. Before we couldn't, because the previous government canned funding for ASLEP.

Small technicality, but the Aurora carries 8 torpedos.
Search stores include 96 spaces for sonobouys and long burning Mk58 Smkoes +
35 Short burning smokes +
25 SUS (underwater noismakers for signaling submarines) +
6 parachute flares.

3600nm easily. Done Comox to Kinloss, Scotland in one 12 hour hop (3750nm).

It would be nice if Lockheed opened up that P-3 line again. It really is a great a/c for this kind of work.