CSeries to Replace CP-140 Auroras ????

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
ScudRunner
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3239
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:58 am

CSeries to Replace CP-140 Auroras ????

Post by ScudRunner »

http://www.casr.ca/id-aerospace-daly-cseries.htm

Image

Image




Adapting the Bombardier CSeries to replace CP-140 Auroras for Wide-Area Maritime Patrol

Canada's Department of National Defence has announced that it plans to replace the upgraded and 're-lifed' CP-140 Aurora fleet between 2015 and 2020. Defence Construction Canada staffers are already comparing measurements of CFB Greenwood's hangars and Boeing P-8A Poseidon airframe to see what modifications will be required to accommodate this front-. for CP-140 replacement. As citizens, we must ask ourselves: Is the purchase of yet another foreign aircraft a wise course for Canada? Most importantly, how will this affect Canada's aerospace industry?

Is there a domestic alternative to the foreign-sourced P-8A Poseidon? At the moment, no. None are available. But then, the P-8A Poseidon isn't available other than as a prototype either. That airframe is based on Boeing's 737 airliner. As it happens, a domestic design has been developed to compete directly with the 737 in the commercial field. [1] That aircraft is Bombardier's CSeries.

Bombardier Aerospace has announced that it "is on track" to deliver its first CSeries airliner in 2013. This CSeries is to be a smaller, high-efficiency airliner offered in two sizes, a shorter CS110 and longer CS130 (the numbers indicating passenger seat totals). Today's tougher commerical market dictates greater attention to both operating economies and reduced maintenance burdens. Such emphasis shows that there is no reason why the CSeries airframe could not also be modified into a Canadian-built competitor to the P-8A Poseidon as a maritime patrol aircraft.

All shorter-range airliners are designed for the higher 'cycles' of landing and taking off on multi- legged regional routes giving the aircraft built-in durability advantages over longer-range types. To achieve its goals of lower weight and minimized maintenance, Bombardier has designed the CSeries to incorporate a large percentage of composite materials into its airframe construction. Since composites make an airframe inherently more resistant to corrosion while flying over salt water, the CSeries will be less vulnerable than older, largely aluminum-constructed competition.

Bombardier will also be a first-adopter with more efficient geared turbofans – the new-technology Pratt & Whitney PW1524G turbine (or GTF as this engine was previously known). These new PW1000 series geared turbofans are vastly superior to all older-style turbofan engines (such as the P-8A's CFM56s). By comparison, PW1000 geared turbofans have reduced carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions as well as a lower specific fuel consumption.

There was a time when Canadian aerospace firms had little trouble in adapting the airframe of airliners into maritime patrol aircraft. Once such aerospace firm was Montreal-based Canadair.Canadair's CP-107 Argus was based on an existing airliner, the Bristol Britannia, but the Argus was modified almost beyond recognition for its new role. The Argus would give Canada years of sterling service in the anti-submarine role and on sovereignty patrols. When it entered RCAF service the Argus was one of the most advanced ASW aircraft in the world. But the legacy of Canada's Argus didn't live on.

The Canadian-built CP-107 Argus served for 24 years before being replaced by the US Lockheed CP-140 Aurora. Canadair was involved once more but, this time, in a much diminished role. For the Aurora, only wings and a few small parts were built by Montreal for shipment to the US for assembly by Lockheed. Soon after, Canadair would be sold to become Bombardier Aerospace.

So Bombardier has the Argus heritage to look back on and a new-technology airframe in the final stage of design. That CSeries may be beyond the dreams of designers at Canadair in the 1950s but adapting the airframe to the maritime patrol role is a relatively straightforward if complex task. The CSeries, like all modern airliners, consists of double-lobed fuselage with passengers above and cargo below. The lower lobe provides the ideal space for weapons bay (aft), sonobuoy launch tubes and search sensors – radar and EO/IR turret, etc. (forward ). A composite structure simplifies placement of all other sensors.

In arrangement, our conceptual 'CP-207' Argus II follows the pattern established by both P-8A and planned Airbus maritime patrol derivatives. The purpose is not to introduce a revolutionary new concept. Quite the reverse. The airframe is merely a 'platform' for the sensors and weapons. That being the case, why should that platform not be based on an upcoming Canadian airframe?

Broadening the Breed: Other CSeries Military Roles – VIP and Multi-Role Tanker Transport

Of course, Bombardier designed the CSeries as an airliner. The simplest military role adaptation of all would be as a VIP transport. If this Canadian-built airframe can fulfill the 'Canada One' role, it should do so. If a nation takes pride in its aerospace accomplishments, it must be shown. What better way to demonstrate that pride, than in the premier place of honour in Canada's Air Force?

A CSeries VIP variant might share some common features with the Argus II maritime patrol type. Superficially, the VIP aircraft would look more like a standard airline CSeries but the VIP variant could incorporate military fittings such as extended-range fuel tanks, observation windows, and even defensive aids. If war, as Clausewitz said, is the continuation of diplomacy by other means then it is no surprise that aircraft meant for diplomatic or warrior roles have so much in common.
And what of the baseline CSeries for military cargo or combi (combined passengers and cargo) roles? This aircraft would not be suitable for the strategic role – the CF's larger Airbus CC-150 Polaris fills that role. CSeries payload and range are both too limited to take over all aspects of Polaris taskings. There are, however, numerous valuable contributions that a cargo/combi CSeries could make in CF service – including taking a load off of the Polaris fleet.

A CSeries Jack of Many Military Roles – the Multi-Role Theatre Support Tanker/Transport

There is also potential to take on another Polaris role – that of Multi-Role Tanker Transports. The Polaris MRTTs are fitted with twin inflight refuelling pods which allow them to tank up the CF-18 fighters. This was intended to permit CF-18s to deploy overseas more easily but Polaris MRTTs also escort and refuel any CF-18s deploying from one North American base to another.Domestic air-to-air refuelling and fighter support tasks could be more economically handled by a smaller aircraft than Polaris MRTTs. The CSeries could form the basis for a Theatre Support Tanker/Transport, an in-theatre analogue of the larger MRTT. Compared with an MRTT, TSTT taskings would be of a more regional nature. A CF TSTT fleet could support operations all across North America, having sufficient range to operate from Canadian airfields to the Arctic, the Carribean, or from Pacific to Atlantic.

Adapting a closely-related airframe for both maritime patrol and transport duties also has a Canadian prescendent. The same Bristol Britannia airliner design adapted by Canadair into that CC-107 Argus ASW aircraft was also transformed into the CC-106 Yukon. That Yukon acted as the turboprop equivalent to today's CC-150 Polaris jet-powered strategic transport, flying both RCAF freight and passenger roles.

In the past, Canada's Air Force has also had intermediate-sized transport aircraft. One example is another Canadair adaptation – the turboprop CC-109 Cosmopolitan. The 'Cosmo' was designed as a regional airliner but had been re-engined by Canadair to have the same engines as tactical Hercules transports and Aurora patrol aircraft. On domestic flights, the CC-109 Cosmopolitans filled a gap between smaller utility types and larger, jet-engined CC-137 Husky, a military Boeing 707 airliner. Today, the Air Force tries to use the large Polaris to fill both roles. The CSeries is sized between the old Cosmo and the Husky and CSeries will have advantages over both – the speed and range that CC-109s lacked and the rugged durability missing in the transatlantic 707s.

Getting There – Moving from Statements of Support to Procurement of Canadian Aerospace

It is easy to demand money for this project or that program but rather harder to deliver funds – especially in our current economic climate. Aircraft purchases are never inexpensive these days but where is the value in our Federal Governments investing the better part of $1B in Canadian aerospace only to turn around a spend tens of Billions on foreign-made aircraft? Sure, there are Regional Industrial Benefits but such 'offsets' do little to foster an environment of innovation.
In a sense, Canada has already paid for the development of the TSTT. Being essentially 'combi' airliners, the 'Yukon IIs ' will require little further funding to realize. Developing an all new martime patrol aircraft may seem more daunting. But, here too, the CSeries CS110 airframe development has been paid for and detail development can be both supported and tailored by the Air Force. Under AIMP, half the CP-140 fleet is to retire. One Aurora could act as a 'CX-140' avionics testbed for the 'Argus II ',allowing seamless integration of avionics from AIMP into the CSeries airframe. That would be the basis for a 'CP-207A' to replace the Aurora. Future avionics upgrades for a CSeries-based 'Argus II ' would ensure Canada of a first-rate patrol aircraft for decades. A Canadian development of a Canadian aircraft in Canadian service.

The Government of Canada is paying for at least part of the development costs for the CSeries. If Bombardier knew that a TSTT variant was of interest, features could be incorporated into the aircraft before the final design work was completed. The necessary airframe adaptations would be minimal. Other than the outer wing mounting points for refuelling pods, there would be only superficial differences between a TSTT and a standard CSeries civilian cargo / combi transport.

In return for a little planning and a modest investment in militarizing the CSeries, Canada would gain a force multiplier and mobility aid that is the envy of our allies. Aquiring militarized CSeries in the TSTT 'Yukon II ' guise would be a good start to long term support of Canada's aerospace industry. That support would be reinforced every time the TSTT called in at military and civilian airfields used by the CF thoughout North America. Aquiring the complimentary maritime patrol 'Argus II ' would be an even stronger sign of support for, and confidence in, Canada's aerospace industry and its products while also solving the CF requirement for future Aurora replacements.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by ScudRunner on Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
flying4dollars
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:56 am

Re: CSeries to Replace CP-140 Auroras

Post by flying4dollars »

Those aurora's are sweet airplanes, but yes, old. The ones in the pic above are Embraers. Bout time we started upgrading our military gear. The C-17 was a good start
---------- ADS -----------
 
AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: CSeries to Replace CP-140 Auroras

Post by AuxBatOn »

This website is not about real procurement, but ideas, from an outsider.

1 thing I do not understand, why can't we buy something off the shelf, that we do not have to modify, unlike something canadian that we will have to modify and run into problems??
---------- ADS -----------
 
Going for the deck at corner
Connor M
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 5:22 pm

Re: CSeries to Replace CP-140 Auroras

Post by Connor M »

That site is the authors opinion and not related to the actual government.
Seriously if we were going to go ahead with a made in Canada replacment for the aurora why not use the maritime patrol dash 8 that Field has been delivering to the Japanese and Autrailaians. It seems like I proven product versus a clean sheet design. But Canada does have a history of being the flying test bed for such projects.
---------- ADS -----------
 
ME109
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:44 pm

Re: CSeries to Replace CP-140 Auroras

Post by ME109 »

Another 2 billion dollar made at home solution to a 500 million dollar issue?
---------- ADS -----------
 
moocow
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:36 pm

Re: CSeries to Replace CP-140 Auroras

Post by moocow »

If the US next-gen tanker is any indication, there will always be people wanting to spend money on a home grown solution even tho it may not be the best. If the C-Series can be adapted for a reasonable cost, may be a good idea. Problem is should we put money into Bombardier, they don't exactly have the best business track record.
---------- ADS -----------
 
SAR_YQQ
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: CANADA

Re: CSeries to Replace CP-140 Auroras

Post by SAR_YQQ »

CASR is not a source worth quoting. Their fits of fanciful ideas are usually myopic at best.

FWIW the P8 Poseidon only looks like a 737-NG, it is made on a completely different assembly line to vastly different tolerances.

In today's age none of Canada's plane-making companies are really interested in Military Aviation. Most of them squawk and want a piece of the pie, but none of them actually make the effort and sink the millions into R&D required to compete with the big boys on a planet-wide scale. If and when we finally replace the Aurora's (which won't be for quite some time) - it will most likely be off-the-shelf and whatever is easy to support.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
modi13
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:49 pm

Re: CSeries to Replace CP-140 Auroras

Post by modi13 »

In terms of operational capabilities, would a CSeries, or any other proposed aircraft, come even close to the Aurora's 17-hour endurance? For that matter, would a jet really be the best choice for low-altitude, low-airspeed patrols over the ocean?
---------- ADS -----------
 
BigB
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:29 pm

Re: CSeries to Replace CP-140 Auroras

Post by BigB »

modi13 wrote:For that matter, would a jet really be the best choice for low-altitude, low-airspeed patrols over the ocean?
The Brits have been flying the Nimrod (jet) for decades now. Not the best looking gal on the block though. :lol:
---------- ADS -----------
 
ScudRunner
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3239
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:58 am

Re: CSeries to Replace CP-140 Auroras

Post by ScudRunner »

My Bad meant to put a ???? at the end of the Title, either way good read and discussion. I would think if we are going to spend the money on new Boeing's to replace the Auroras why not spend it at home after all the aircraft is just a platform its the guts inside it that does the job.
---------- ADS -----------
 
moocow
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:36 pm

Re: CSeries to Replace CP-140 Auroras ????

Post by moocow »

Well let's take BC Ferry for example. They had to replace one of their boat after it hit rocks and sank off the Sunshine Coast. BC Ferry went to a German boat builder with a very good track record which really pissed off the BC ship yard. Now the issue is that the same BC ship yard under NDP built the crappy Fast Ferry (facts about how it got crappy is another story). It's the exact same problem when it comes to military procurement. Throw money at the industry at the expense of taxpayer to keep jobs in Canada and hope to hell that they will apply what they learn during the process to build more stuff for export. Or just buy what works from someone else and fund their economy with our tax dollars. If the average Canadian bitch about how money should spend on something else other than the military, then they shouldn't bitch about spending money to buy equipment from foreign countries. After all if they don't want money to fund the military industrial complex, no point in throwing money into the industry.
---------- ADS -----------
 
old_man
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 319
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: CSeries to Replace CP-140 Auroras ????

Post by old_man »

Remember also that whenever a big purchase is made there is a lot of effort and stipulations that components are made in Canada. (landing gear, engines, avionics....etc). It is not like the entire place is built in one place in one country. So even if you are purchasing a foreign assembled airplane they will ensure that a lot of that money gets put right back into Canada. This is standard practice in a lot of countries.
---------- ADS -----------
 
moocow
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:36 pm

Re: CSeries to Replace CP-140 Auroras ????

Post by moocow »

Thanks for the correction old_man.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Spokes
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1057
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:22 pm
Location: Toronto, On

Re: CSeries to Replace CP-140 Auroras

Post by Spokes »

Connor M wrote:That site is the authors opinion and not related to the actual government.
Seriously if we were going to go ahead with a made in Canada replacment for the aurora why not use the maritime patrol dash 8 that Field has been delivering to the Japanese and Autrailaians. It seems like I proven product versus a clean sheet design. But Canada does have a history of being the flying test bed for such projects.
This has been discussed to death on other threads. The Dash8 does not come close to meeting the operational capabilities that the Aurora does. It is simply not a viable option.

Someone else mentioned a 17 hour endurance. Hmmm, well I know that alot of the stats you see mention that, but realitically 17 hrs is a bit of a stretch. It is extremely rare to plan for more than a 12 hour mission. I have heard of trips stretching to the 15 hour range, but that was mostly spending time looking for a place to land on a fogged in coast.

Jets have been done before. The British will tell you thier Nimrod is far superior to the P-3. But of course they always claim everything they do is superior. In any case, the Nimrod has been very successful.

It is always amusing to see someone photoshop a patrolish looking paintjob on an airplane and claim it could replace the AUrora (P-3). It is not that simple. The P-3 Airframe is extremely capable.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Wahunga!
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”