Ottawa halts $1.6B upgrade of maritime patrol aircraft

[Ogee]

I've seen some stuff from a company down East called Provincial Air Transport or something like that. Don't they claim to have a contract for our maritime surveillance using King Airs?

What's that about then?

[mellow_pilot]

Might be ice patrol (looking for icebergs, hazards to shipping). Might be other applications, but a military application is quite different. The Dash8 can't kill things then go home and rearm. That's pretty much the difference between military and civilian platforms. (for maritime patrol anyway)

[WJflyer]

Provincial Airlines was contracted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for coastal patrol work. They do airborne maritime patrol work, fisheries patrol, the ice patrol, pollution detection and monitoring using modified 3 King Air's. They also do work on occasion for the DND, RCMP and many other departments at times.

[EI-EIO]

There's bound to be something from Antonov, Sukhoi or Ilyushin that can do it WAY cheaper

Being (only a hair) more serious about it - doesn't something bigger than a Q400 but smaller than a 737 sound vaguely... C-Series-ish?

That's not launch aid Mr WTO! That's military that is!

[teacher]

It seems like another military purchase goes from techincal to political.

Military wants to scrap $1B plane upgrades
Pumping more money into 25-year-old Auroras makes no sense, DND argues

David Pugliese
The Ottawa Citizen


Thursday, November 29, 2007


The Canadian military is recommending that a billion-dollar modernization program for the country's fleet of Aurora surveillance aircraft be scrapped and that the air force ease back on how it uses the planes so they can be kept flying until a replacement is delivered.

The military argues that it doesn't make sense to pump yet more money into the 25-year-old Auroras, noting that by the time the modernized planes are ready, even more advanced technology will be available. There are also concerns about the extent of the structural problems now facing the Auroras.

The military's recommendation is to keep the Auroras flying until 2016 without any upgrades, while at the same time proceeding with the purchase of the Poseidon surveillance aircraft, the U.S. navy's successor to its version of the Aurora. Several years ago, Canada was invited by the U.S. to take part in the Poseidon program, but declined.

The outcome of the Aurora modernization, however, could become a political hot potato for the Conservatives whose defence strategy puts emphasis on enforcing Canada's sovereignty and boosting surveillance in the Arctic -- jobs for the Aurora.

Opposition MPs are already accusing the Harper government of mishandling the issue and jeopardizing coastal and Arctic security.

The decision on whether to proceed with the Aurora upgrade rests in the hands of Defence Minister Peter MacKay. Mr. MacKay could reject the Defence Department's recommendation.

"The decision has been delayed until Dec. 18 as the minister is waiting for more information before making a decision," said Jay Paxton, an official in Mr. MacKay's office.

A decision was originally to be made Nov. 20. The Defence Department did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. MacKay is expected to get a rough ride on the Aurora issue today when he appears before the Commons defence committee.

Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre said when the Liberal government approved the Aurora upgrades, it was told by the military that such a program would result in a modern aircraft capable of flying until 2025. "Why do we have to buy new planes when we've already spent $900 million in upgrades?," Mr. Coderre asked. "How did this waste of money happen?"

Mr. Coderre and NDP defence critic Dawn Black have accused the Harper government of trying to hide the issue by delaying the Aurora decision until after the Commons rises for the Christmas holidays.

Air force commander Lt.-Gen. Angus Watt cancelled a scheduled interview with the Citizen on the Aurora and other future programs for the service after receiving advice from senior Defence Department public affairs officials and Mr. MacKay's office.

Mr. Coderre said Mr. MacKay is also worried because a decision not to proceed with follow-on upgrades for the Aurora could cost hundreds of jobs in his home province of Nova Scotia. "That's why they want to pull the plug at Christmas when no one is watching," he added.

So far, the Defence Department has spent $955 million to modernize the Aurora with new radios and other communications equipment and navigation gear.

The military, however, wants to cut its losses and not proceed with two programs totaling more than $1 billion. Those would equip the planes with new computers and sensors as well as deal with structural improvements to the Aurora's wings and other parts.

The Auroras operate out of Canadian Forces Base Comox, B.C., and CFB Greenwood, N.S., and are considered vital for watching over the country's maritime approaches. The aircraft were purchased in the early 1980s to conduct anti-submarine patrols and maritime surveillance.

The military would prefer to tie in to the U.S. navy's P-8 Poseidon aircraft program starting around 2011 or 2012. An order placed then would see the delivery of the first of those aircraft by 2016.

To keep the Auroras flying safely until that time, the military is looking at limiting how the planes are flown so that additional stress is not put on the aircraft. It has also started a series of inspections to detect and repair any structural damage.

In November, the air force cancelled Aurora surveillance flights in the North for several months because of long-term maintenance issues in the fleet.

A copy of the Canada First defence strategy, obtained earlier this year by the Citizen, recommended that the upgrade work on the Aurora fleet be cancelled. That strategy also called for six of the planes to be scrapped and the rest reassigned for Arctic patrols. The government, however, has stated that its Canada First strategy paper has not been finalized. No date has been set for its release.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2007

http://www.canada.com/components/print. ... 93a738a23b

[WJflyer]

It seems like another military purchase goes from techincal to political.

Military wants to scrap $1B plane upgrades
Pumping more money into 25-year-old Auroras makes no sense, DND argues

David Pugliese
The Ottawa Citizen


Thursday, November 29, 2007


The Canadian military is recommending that a billion-dollar modernization program for the country's fleet of Aurora surveillance aircraft be scrapped and that the air force ease back on how it uses the planes so they can be kept flying until a replacement is delivered.

The military argues that it doesn't make sense to pump yet more money into the 25-year-old Auroras, noting that by the time the modernized planes are ready, even more advanced technology will be available. There are also concerns about the extent of the structural problems now facing the Auroras.

The military's recommendation is to keep the Auroras flying until 2016 without any upgrades, while at the same time proceeding with the purchase of the Poseidon surveillance aircraft, the U.S. navy's successor to its version of the Aurora. Several years ago, Canada was invited by the U.S. to take part in the Poseidon program, but declined.

The outcome of the Aurora modernization, however, could become a political hot potato for the Conservatives whose defence strategy puts emphasis on enforcing Canada's sovereignty and boosting surveillance in the Arctic -- jobs for the Aurora.

Opposition MPs are already accusing the Harper government of mishandling the issue and jeopardizing coastal and Arctic security.

The decision on whether to proceed with the Aurora upgrade rests in the hands of Defence Minister Peter MacKay. Mr. MacKay could reject the Defence Department's recommendation.

"The decision has been delayed until Dec. 18 as the minister is waiting for more information before making a decision," said Jay Paxton, an official in Mr. MacKay's office.

A decision was originally to be made Nov. 20. The Defence Department did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. MacKay is expected to get a rough ride on the Aurora issue today when he appears before the Commons defence committee.

Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre said when the Liberal government approved the Aurora upgrades, it was told by the military that such a program would result in a modern aircraft capable of flying until 2025. "Why do we have to buy new planes when we've already spent $900 million in upgrades?," Mr. Coderre asked. "How did this waste of money happen?"

Mr. Coderre and NDP defence critic Dawn Black have accused the Harper government of trying to hide the issue by delaying the Aurora decision until after the Commons rises for the Christmas holidays.

Air force commander Lt.-Gen. Angus Watt cancelled a scheduled interview with the Citizen on the Aurora and other future programs for the service after receiving advice from senior Defence Department public affairs officials and Mr. MacKay's office.

Mr. Coderre said Mr. MacKay is also worried because a decision not to proceed with follow-on upgrades for the Aurora could cost hundreds of jobs in his home province of Nova Scotia. "That's why they want to pull the plug at Christmas when no one is watching," he added.

So far, the Defence Department has spent $955 million to modernize the Aurora with new radios and other communications equipment and navigation gear.

The military, however, wants to cut its losses and not proceed with two programs totaling more than $1 billion. Those would equip the planes with new computers and sensors as well as deal with structural improvements to the Aurora's wings and other parts.

The Auroras operate out of Canadian Forces Base Comox, B.C., and CFB Greenwood, N.S., and are considered vital for watching over the country's maritime approaches. The aircraft were purchased in the early 1980s to conduct anti-submarine patrols and maritime surveillance.

The military would prefer to tie in to the U.S. navy's P-8 Poseidon aircraft program starting around 2011 or 2012. An order placed then would see the delivery of the first of those aircraft by 2016.

To keep the Auroras flying safely until that time, the military is looking at limiting how the planes are flown so that additional stress is not put on the aircraft. It has also started a series of inspections to detect and repair any structural damage.

In November, the air force cancelled Aurora surveillance flights in the North for several months because of long-term maintenance issues in the fleet.

A copy of the Canada First defence strategy, obtained earlier this year by the Citizen, recommended that the upgrade work on the Aurora fleet be cancelled. That strategy also called for six of the planes to be scrapped and the rest reassigned for Arctic patrols. The government, however, has stated that its Canada First strategy paper has not been finalized. No date has been set for its release.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2007

http://www.canada.com/components/print. ... 93a738a23b

The writing's on the wall... there are serious structural issues with the Aurora fleet that basically require new wings and tails, and that is expensive. The Liberals canned ASLEP, which was the project that would have replaced the wings and the tails of the Aurora fleet. Not only that, they screwed the pooch with AIMP; whoever decided to create an incremental modernization program that would last 10 years so that when the final bird is finished, they all have to be retired should be fired and then charged with wasting taxpayer's money.

Not only that IMP screwed the pooch as well. Their technical failures and screw ups have not exactly been endearing to the guys who fly and maintain the Auroras.

[Brock]

The C-Series from Bombardier does seem to be well timed. Block 3 of AIMP is going ahead with the full prototype development and testing so there should be an integrated sensor package available to put inside an empty airframe. Of course, if Blocks 1 and 2 are any example, this process should be complete sometime around 2020.

I guess the question is whether the government will feel compelled to 'buy Quebec'.

I find the latest article amusing as the $1.6bn project (not including ASLEP - another $600mil) is retagged as a $1bn project for the headline. Not exactly responsible journalism or the product of good editorial review IMHO. Of course comparing apples to oranges is what we have come to expect from journalists and politicians in this country when trying to make their point.

Mr Coderre is also quoted as saying that AIMP would take the aircraft to 2025. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't 2015 the date without ASLEP and 2025 with ASLEP?

[WJflyer]

The C-Series from Bombardier does seem to be well timed. Block 3 of AIMP is going ahead with the full prototype development and testing so there should be an integrated sensor package available to put inside an empty airframe. Of course, if Blocks 1 and 2 are any example, this process should be complete sometime around 2020.

I guess the question is whether the government will feel compelled to 'buy Quebec'.

I find the latest article amusing as the $1.6bn project (not including ASLEP - another $600mil) is retagged as a $1bn project for the headline. Not exactly responsible journalism or the product of good editorial review IMHO. Of course comparing apples to oranges is what we have come to expect from journalists and politicians in this country when trying to make their point.

Mr Coderre is also quoted as saying that AIMP would take the aircraft to 2025. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't 2015 the date without ASLEP and 2025 with ASLEP?

I believe you are correct on the dates. We can push the Aurora's up to 2015 right now without doing any major structural work if we are careful and manage the remaining hours left on the airframes carefully, but if we do ASLEP, which would essentially replace the wings and the tails of the aircraft, we can go out to 2025. So the military is questioning, why should we continue with the avionics and sensor upgrade on a obsolete and ageing platform when we can get new aircraft with an updated avionics and sensor suite instead?

Mr. Coderre better not continue to make mountains out of a molehill, otherwise, his party will take the flak for it. All the Conservatives have to say is that the Aurora upgrade program was started by the Liberals, and that they can pull out data from both Canadian and American engineers which stated that the birds won't last any longer without major structural work and the Liberals knew it when they were in power.

[snaproll20]

Submarine detection needs have changed.
A stand-off capability has been reached and the proponents of steep turns 300 feet above the water are short of knowledge in this area. An anti-sub torpedo cannot be dropped effectively too close to a target. It needs to home in from a distance.
The need for sub-killer capability has also declined. You can destroy a submarine with a small nuclear warhead rocket-launched, or cruise missile, launched from anywhere. (Tight turn bombing runs are extinct.)
The first essential is to know what is going on. This can be better achieved by unmanned flying vehicles. We can launch many of those, for better coverage, for a lesser price, and we do not have to keep training and employing flightcrew. We also do not have to mourn the loss of CAF personnel flying antiquated equipment.
Once you have detected and tracked the underwater threat you merely need an acceptable method of dealing with it.
Probably of more practical needs, it is surface infractions of our sovereignty that need to be patrolled.

[SAR_YQQ]

I talked with a USN P-3 driver over beers a couple nights ago - I discussed the issue of the P-8 (737-XXX) and it's vulnerability down low. \

He admitted that the only time they would ever need to be low is for MAD runs - all other weapons release could be done at altitude. Sono's and torps would all be released high and guided to their exact spot in the water - therefore no requirement to be yanking and banking at 300' AWL.

[teacher]

So why isn't this ever reported in the news. Why do oppositions politicians always get away with spouting crap and omitting facts that would drastically change people's opinions of the matter.

[planett]

teacher,

I believe you answered your own question.

That is how science differs from politics and religion.

Whatever you do, don't name your Teddy Bear Mohammad.

[teacher]

Very true, what I should have said is why don't the military and current leaders do a better job of countering with the real facts and not sitting back saying nothing!?!?

[planett]

Apathy, agendas, or lack of real understanding maybe.

[planett]

Look at the Avro Arrow and the ammunition the opposition used to bring it down. Three notable examples were:

They said it had limited range. Compared to an airliner, yes, but it met or exceeded RCAF requirements for radius of action. Even before being fitted with the final engine variant, it met or exceeded all performance requirements for which it was designed. A non issue, except in Parliament.

They said it cost too much. It sure was expensive, but the total cost was for 30 pre-production development aircraft and 100 production aircraft. The total estimate for 130 was divided by 100 to artificially inflate the cost per unit for each of the 100, even though the RCAF would recieve 130. Futhermore, by the time 5 airframes were produced, one third of the whole program cost was already spent.

They said the Bomarc air defence missile would make manned interceptors obsolete, perhaps a reasonable assumption at the time, history took another path.

[Spokes]

An anti-sub torpedo cannot be dropped effectively too close to a target. It needs to home in from a distance.

No, we always drop as close to the target as possible.

The need for sub-killer capability has also declined. You can destroy a submarine with a small nuclear warhead rocket-launched, or cruise missile, launched from anywhere. (Tight turn bombing runs are extinct.)

Canada does not use Nuclear weapons. Cruise missiles will not fly under water where the submarines are. The closest thing might be the navy's rocket thrown torpedo. This was known as ASROC I believe. It is a relatively short range device. (as compared to 'cruise missiles'). As for tight turn bombing runs, well, with a well trained crew ther is no need to make steep turns while chasing a sub. In fact, heavy manaouvering is discouraged for a couple reasons. Firstly it reduces the effectiveness of the MAD system. Secondly a few hours of that kind of nonsense has a hugely fatiguing effect on a crew. For example, some sonobouys can weigh 30-40 lbs. loading these while making 2g turns really takes its toll on people.

The first essential is to know what is going on. This can be better achieved by unmanned flying vehicles. We can launch many of those, for better coverage, for a lesser price, and we do not have to keep training and employing flightcrew. We also do not have to mourn the loss of CAF personnel flying antiquated equipment.

The only way I know of to track a submarine under water from an aircraft (fixed wing) is through the use of sonobouys. I do not know of any UAV that can carry a bunch of sonobouys. On a typical ASW mission on a quiet target it would not be unusual to drop 40-60 sono's. I have even seen up to 80 or 90 used.

Probably of more practical needs, it is surface infractions of our sovereignty that need to be patrolled.

True to a point. While this is an import part of a maritime patrol aircraft fleet, I believe it would be foolhardy to abandon ASW all together. There is no gaurantee that any future foe will not have a submarine threat. If we abandon ASW now, in the future there would be no one left who knows how to get a submarine in a future that might require it. It is a difficult art, and it is useful to keep some skill in this area.

[WJflyer]

Canada does not use Nuclear weapons. Cruise missiles will not fly under water where the submarines are. The closest thing might be the navy's rocket thrown torpedo. This was known as ASROC I believe. It is a relatively short range device. (as compared to 'cruise missiles'). As for tight turn bombing runs, well, with a well trained crew ther is no need to make steep turns while chasing a sub. In fact, heavy manaouvering is discouraged for a couple reasons. Firstly it reduces the effectiveness of the MAD system. Secondly a few hours of that kind of nonsense has a hugely fatiguing effect on a crew. For example, some sonobouys can weigh 30-40 lbs. loading these while making 2g turns really takes its toll on people.

Last ship that carried ASROC was the RESTIGOUCHE Class DDE's... last one was paid off in 1997. Since we retired these ships, we no longer have ASROC in our inventory.

Furthermore, the USN is working on a 'glide torpedo'. They fitted a GPS receiver and a pair of wings to the Mk54 torpedo, which allows the torpedo to be dropped from high altitude and glide a distance to the submarine. Very neat stuff.

Probably of more practical needs, it is surface infractions of our sovereignty that need to be patrolled.

True to a point. While this is an import part of a maritime patrol aircraft fleet, I believe it would be foolhardy to abandon ASW all together. There is no gaurantee that any future foe will not have a submarine threat. If we abandon ASW now, in the future there would be no one left who knows how to get a submarine in a future that might require it. It is a difficult art, and it is useful to keep some skill in this area.

Exactly!

We need to maintain our skills for all occasions. You fight wars with the military you have now, not the army you have in the future. It takes time to acquire new skills for the military; when you most need a skill, you might not have it in time because of this lag time.

[WJflyer]

Continuing this little saga. Nice to see where the Liberal's priorities lie...

From the CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/st ... urora.html

Don't ditch patrol planes, Liberals urge
Last Updated: Monday, December 10, 2007 | 3:15 PM AT
CBC News

The federal Liberals are calling on the Conservative government to complete the upgrades to a fleet of military aircraft based in Nova Scotia and British Columbia.

Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre said the long-range Aurora patrol planes could keep flying until 2025 with the necessary improvements.

Coderre was flanked by Nova Scotia Liberal MPs Scott Brison, Mike Savage and Geoff Regan at a news conference in Halifax Monday.

He said scrapping the $1-billion package would seriously harm the Department of National Defence's ability to track submarines, smugglers and polluters off the coast.

Even if the plan is to replace the aircraft, stalling upgrades creates a problem, he added.

"You will have kind of a gap in some years when Canada won't be able to fulfil its own military duty," Coderre said.

The department has deferred a decision on continuing with improvements to the Auroras, which began under the previous Liberal government.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay, Nova Scotia's representative in cabinet, is expected to make an announcement on Dec. 18.

He has said DND is considering winding down the 30-year-old fleet and replacing it with new planes.

Critics point out that the government has already spent more than $900 million upgrading the fleet's radar and navigation systems, and thousands of jobs are on the line in Nova Scotia.

"Nothing has changed in terms of the benefits," said Brison. "If, in fact, this decision is good for the taxpayer, or good for the region, or good for the Canadian Armed Forces, why doesn't the minister make the announcement now?"

Fourteen of the 18 planes, which are capable of flying 9,000 kilometres without refuelling, are based at 14 Wing Greenwood in Nova Scotia. The others are based in Comox, B.C.
With files from the Canadian Press

I guess Coderre and Brison never read the engineering reports which stated that the fleet is near the end of their airframe's lives...

[teacher]

Auroras to be replaced, MacKay hints

Minister: 'We need to ensure' patrol craft are safe

By STEPHEN MAHER Ottawa Bureau

Published: 2007-12-11

OTTAWA — There are good arguments for replacing the Aurora maritime patrol planes, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Monday, which suggests the government may not go ahead with plans to refurbish the planes in Nova Scotia.

The government won’t announce its decision until a week from today, but Mr. MacKay’s comments leave little doubt he is leaning toward buying new planes rather than spending more money on the 18 Auroras, 14 of which are based at 14 Wing Greenwood.

"Would you feel safe getting in a 40-year-old car driving at high speed down the Trans-Canada Highway?" he said. "These pilots have to get in this equipment, Sea Kings and Auroras, and fly out over the North Atlantic in February in some pretty difficult weather conditions. So we need to ensure that we have proper, safe and efficient equipment."

At a news conference in Halifax on Monday morning, Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre attacked Mr. MacKay for considering replacing the Auroras, saying the decision would put 2,000 jobs at risk.

"Those planes have a capacity to be perfect up to 2025," Mr. Coderre said. "If we are replacing them . . . and we’re stalling those other (upgrades), you will have kind of a gap in some years when Canada won’t be able to fulfil its own military duty."

Mr. MacKay said the Liberals have no credibility on this issue, given that in 1993 former prime minister Jean Chretien cancelled a replacement plan for the aging Sea King helicopters, which led to the government paying a $500-million cancellation fee.

"That’s pretty rich coming from members of a government who refused to do anything on the Sea King helicopters to the point that many of them were falling out of the sky, and we had to spend in excess of 30 hours in maintenance for one hour of flying time," Mr. MacKay said. "We’re not going to find ourselves in that situation with the Auroras."

Mr. Coderre was flanked by Nova Scotia Liberal MPs Geoff Regan, Scott Brison and Michael Savage. Mr. MacKay said he can do without their advice and made a crack aimed at his old rival, Mr. Brison. "I’m not going to get pressured by lobbyists, by opposition members," he said. "I’m not going to send a BlackBerry message to the head of IMP or anybody else until we’re prepared to make a decision for taxpayers, for the men and women of the Forces." In 2005, Mr. Brison was embarrassed when it was revealed that he had sent a BlackBerry message to a friend in an investment bank that suggested the government would soon announce a change in income trust tax rules.

The Defence Department was to announce its plans for the Auroras last month but Mr. MacKay delayed the decision until next week.

According to The Canadian Press, the military is considering two aircraft to replace the Auroras: Boeing’s P-8 Poseidon and Bombardier’s Astor. If the military were to buy the Bombardier plane rather than refurbish the Auroras, that could mean jobs going to Quebec instead of Nova Scotia. Mr. MacKay said it would be surprising if Mr. Coderre opposed that.

"When’s the last time a Quebec MP went down to Atlantic Canada to argue for more jobs in the aerospace industry?" he said.

( smaher@herald.ca)

http://thechronicleherald.ca/print_arti ... ory=997479

[teacher]

What do the Libs have to say now? Oh yah, this won't make the news.

Fatigue risks ground 39 US Navy Lockheed P-3C Orions

By Graham Warwick

The US Navy has grounded 39 of its 161 Lockheed P-3C Orion maritime-patrol aircraft because of structural fatigue concerns. Ten of the aircraft deployed operationally are included among those grounded.

Affected aircraft "are beyond known structural limits on the lower section of the P-3", says Naval Air Systems Command, adding this is the third time since 2005 that the US Navy has grounded part of its Orion fleet because of structural concerns.

The grounding is the result of an ongoing fatigue-life analysis and inspection of the airframes. The US Navy expects it to take 18-24 months per aircraft to repair and return the affected Orions to service.

L-3 Communications is refurbishing the outer and centre wing sections on US Navy P-3s, but Navair says the affected area responsible for the latest grounded is not covered by any existing repair programme.

The US Navy plans to begin replacing its P-3Cs in 2013 with 108 Boeing P-8A Poseidon anti-submarine warfare aircraft, but the Orion is expected to remain in service until 2020.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... rions.html

[WJflyer]

I will say this again: Boeing's P-8 MMA is the best choice for us as a Aurora replacement. It will be in the end less painful, and cheaper for us than to do our own homegrown replacement based off the Global Express or the C-Series.

[WJflyer]

The decision is in, and I don't like it one bit:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/v ... sp?id=2532

News Release
The Future of the CP-140 Aurora

NR–07.105 - December 18, 2007

OTTAWA - The Department of National Defence today confirmed its commitment to the Aurora fleet through continued modernization and structural upgrades, keeping the aircraft flying until 2020. As part of the Government of Canada’s pledge to ensure the Canadian Forces have the equipment they need and provide value for taxpayers’ dollars, the Aurora modernization will ensure that the CF continues to protect Canada’s maritime and northern sovereignty.

“The Department will capitalize on these investments by upgrading the structure on the majority of the fleet,” said the Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay, Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. “The investment will keep the aircraft safe and operationally viable until 2020.”

“I am pleased to let our Aurora communities know that this valuable information gathering aircraft will continue its proud legacy,” said Lieutenant-General Angus Watt, the Chief of the Air Staff. “The Aurora will provide the Air Force with a significant surveillance capability until such time as a future replacement capability is acquired.”

As part of its reexamination of long-term projects, the Department has rescinded a work suspension and moved forward with the next phase of Aurora modernization which will incorporate radar, computer and other systems on Aurora aircraft. Core structural upgrades will also be carried out to ensure the longevity and safe operation of these 10 aircraft.

Three aircraft have been delivered under phase two of the fleet modernization program and three are undergoing these communication and navigation upgrades. The prototype aircraft for the third phase is in for a two-year modification and testing period, and is expected to fly in early 2009.

The Air Force and Navy are assessing and defining their needs for a long-range maritime surveillance aircraft to succeed the Aurora. Technology upgrades already made in the fleet may be transferred and reinvested in the replacement aircraft.

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Media Liaison Office
Department of National Defence
(613) 996-2353 or 2354

Press Secretary
Minister of National Defence
(613) 996-3100

Yeah, upgrade only 10 aircraft out of our fleet of 18, do some structural work, reduce flying time, make vague promises to purchase a replacement, and call it a day. What I would do is just can this freaking Incremental Modernization Program that is so botched up beyond recognition, order the P-8 Poseidon as the replacement, and perform the major structural work needed to keep them airworthy until the P-8's come along. Whatever.

[teacher]

I hope the 10 being modernized will be supplemented by that fleet of UAVs that they keep talking about. This does seem like a Liberal move, a real middle of the ground nobody is really happy approach.

[teacher]

Just read this today. I don't think this is a capability that we can afford to lose. We might not be as quick to jump into a fight with China over Taiwan however we are a pacific rim country and should not take these kind of events with a grain of salt.

Chinese Submarine Fleet Is Growing, Analysts Say

By DAVID LAGUE
Published: February 25, 2008
BEIJING — Several recent events, from an eagle-eyed spotting of an image on Google Earth to an overt military delivery from Russia, suggest that China is continuing its rapid expansion of a submarine fleet that would be particularly useful in a conflict with the United States over Taiwan, analysts and military officials said.

American and other Western military analysts estimate that China has more than 30 advanced and increasingly stealthy submarines, and dozens of older, obsolete types. By the end of the decade, they say, China will have more submarines than the United States, although it will still lag behind in overall ability.

“I would say that the U.S. feels a strong threat from Chinese submarines,” said Andrei Chang, an expert on Chinese and Taiwan military forces and editor of Kanwa Defense Review. “China now has more submarines than Russia, and the speed they are building them is amazing.”

The United States Navy developed a range of antisubmarine sensors and weapons in the cold war that are still considered the world’s best. But fighting submarines has been less of a military priority since then, experts say.

Several events have shed light on the growth and technological advances in China’s fleet.

In late 2006, one of China’s new Song-class conventional submarines remained undetected as it shadowed the American aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk off the coast of Okinawa, Japan, although the exact details of the encounter remain the subject of continuing debate. It then surfaced well within torpedo range.

To some China experts in the United States military, that was an aggressive signal to Washington that China could challenge the United States Navy in waters around Taiwan. It also showed that Chinese submarine technology had advanced more rapidly than some experts had expected.

“The U.S. had no idea it was there,” said Allan Behm, a security analyst in Canberra, Australia, and a former senior Australian Defense Department official. “This is the great capability of very quiet, conventional submarines.”

In July, in another sign of technological progress, China displayed photographs and models of its new Shang-class nuclear-powered attack submarine at an exhibition in Beijing. Two submarines of that class are in service, the official People’s Daily newspaper reported then.

In October, Hans M. Kristensen, a nuclear weapons researcher with the Federation of American Scientists, spotted a Google Earth satellite image that appeared to show two of China’s Jin-class nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines. Some military analysts were surprised that China had built a second submarine of that class so soon after the first, in 2004.

And to put the improvement of its fleet on a fast track, China has also taken delivery of 12 advanced Kilo-class conventional submarines from Russia, defense experts say. Experts say the designs of the newest Chinese submarines show evidence of technical assistance from Russia.

Many foreign security experts, including senior Pentagon analysts, say China’s main objective in upgrading its submarine fleet is the ability to delay or deter a United States intervention on behalf of Taiwan. China regards Taiwan as part of its territory and has warned regularly that it would use force to prevent Taiwan from moving toward formal independence.

Stealthy submarines with torpedoes and antiship missiles would pose a direct threat to the deployment of American aircraft carrier battle groups, likely the first line of response to a Taiwan crisis, security experts say.

The Pentagon is monitoring China closely, officials say. “Chinese submarines have very impressive capabilities, and their numbers are increasing,” the senior American military commander in Asia, Adm. Timothy Keating, said in Beijing recently.

He urged China to be more open about its plans, which he said would reduce the risk of crisis or conflict.

Senior Chinese officers have said the buildup is strictly defensive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/world ... wanted=all

[Brock]

To WJflyer, I understand the desire to piggy-back on a larger country's system but you have to understand the issues that P-8 is trying to get through. The P-8 is years late right now.

It also can't operate for any significant time below 5000' ASL due to the engines overheating. The Americans are trying desparately to find technological solutions to the tactical implications of this. They have already solved the torpedo launch issue but are relying on upcoming technology (multistatics) to figure out new ways to conduct ASW. They walked away from this technology only five years ago because they determined that it wasn't mature enough. As well, anyone who has flown a patrol over the North Atlanic between November and April knows that if you can't get under the weather, you just can't get the job done. Advanced sensors can only do so much.

P-8 might be the way to go in the end but it isn't without its deficiencies. We are rapidly finding ourselves in the same boat as the British who determined that the flight envelopes and equipment required for maritime and overland missions quickly points to two different airframes. Of course the odds of Canada actually buying tools optimized for their intended missions is anyone's guess...