CP 140 aurora

[fish4life]

i was watching the mighty planes on it and they were talking about the service life extension by replacing the wings and tails at what seemed like a pretty crazy cost of 1.4 billion for 14 airplanes. Later they show the inside of one airplane and it was still really old green CRT screens inside. I was just wondering with the electronics also being really old was some consideration given to going with a whole new platform? Even with the wings and tail you are still running really old inefficient engines, could a re-engine not have been in the cards to the same ones the J model hercs are running ? Is the current platform of the Electra just one of those uniquely adapted airframes with a mix of really long endurance / range along with great payload something that can't be replicated in anything more modern? Is the gravel landing ability something that kept the P-8 (737-800) out of the mix?

[Bolter]

the Aurora fleet is also being upgraded to Block III (block II was an avionics upgrade - FMS, flat screen, embedded GPS ring-laser gyros, new autopilot, TCAS II, etc).
Block III, which has already hit the street in some airframes, includes a new world class imaging radar, top of the line Electronic Surveillance system, EO/IR turret, new accoustic system, new data management system/computer, etc.
You can likely find the info on-line but some is still fairly tightly held/classified or at least very sensitive due the capabilities. Block III has better capabilities in many areas than the P-8. Of course the US will continuously spend money upgrading the P-8 over time so it will eventually pass the Aurora. One of the major reasons for Block III is the overall cost (each P-8 costs $250 million or more & requires tanker support to meet RCAF requirements) + Block III was developed in Canada so is by and large not subject to US export controls/regulations (i.e. any military software/technology developed/produced in the US is forever controlled by the US so not modifiable by foreigners - ITARS legislation).
The structural life extension of the Aurora + Block III will make it viable for another 15 years or so (i believe - depends on flying rates). While most people would agree that new engines/props would be nice - there are lots of spares around and the cost to do the flight testing on new engines/props is prohibitive (unless someone else tagged along to help out).

An example of the technology incorporated in the 140M - imaging radar - http://is.mdacorporation.com/mdais_cana ... AN508.aspx

[fish4life]

Thanks, I'm glad to see the guys in the back are getting an upgrade to the equipment as well. If anything with the way Russia seems to be lately we will probably have more need than ever for these Auroras.

[AuxBatOn]

(i.e. any military software/technology developed/produced in the US is forever controlled by the US so not modifiable by foreigners - ITARS legislation).

Not quite true. There are mechanism within which you can modify US military technology. We do Canadian mods to our F-18 software.

[fish4life]

While your on the topic Aux, is the F-18 fleet done with all the upgrades?

[AuxBatOn]

Not yet. I think we'll keep working on the software until we retire it. We also need to buy a couple pieces of equipment to keep up to date with allies.

[sigmet77]

Great info Bolter, thanks.

[Cod Father]

(i.e. any military software/technology developed/produced in the US is forever controlled by the US so not modifiable by foreigners - ITARS legislation).

ITAR, is this what is holding back Canadian companies from going to Tuscon AZ and buying surplus P-3 airframes for converison to air tanker ops?

[Bolter]

(i.e. any military software/technology developed/produced in the US is forever controlled by the US so not modifiable by foreigners - ITARS legislation).

ITAR, is this what is holding back Canadian companies from going to Tuscon AZ and buying surplus P-3 airframes for converison to air tanker ops?

I doubt it - likely a combination of the aircraft not being flyable, being used for parts &/or strategic reserve. P-3s are fairly widespread and the basic airframe isn't exactly new technology (even the new wings are being built with 1950s technology).

In 2003, the USN grounded ~1/2 of their P-3s in service and restricted the flying rates on the rest due fatigue/cracking in the wings/tails. The USN then began a major program to track the cracks and repair those airframes. About the same time, Canada and Norway began to work with Lockheed on reopening the wing/tail line. Line reopened in Atlanta (was originally in California & had been mothballed) using all the original tooling, etc, in 2005/6 - that is where the new wings/tails are coming from. Last info I have, the US was the biggest customer with over 100 sets on order (includes customs, other government agencies). They need to keep the P-3s flying as there won't be sufficient P-8s available to replace everything for a while + speciality aircraft (i.e. elint, P-3 customs AWACS) are still waiting for new replacement projects (last I heard) so could be a while before replaced.
ITARS is a complicated beast. Essentially, it was brought in because the US believes that other nations were transferring/selling/losing US military technology to countries such as China & ITARS aims to prevent/restrict that. Newer systems have more restrictions because they were brought in after the regulations came into force (more US control on software, technology). If a Canadian company purchased a P-3 for tanker conversion, it would already be stripped of pure military technology. That said; they would not be able to resell it outside Canada without US approval & the company might be subject to some security background checks on personnel. Note - The security checks can be a sticking point for anyone with access to sensitive technology. US doesn't trust immigrants very much while Canada does (by law - the Charter).

[Kosiw]

Are the CP 140s still restricted from operating on gravel ?

Big handicap when operating up north...

[Bolter]

Are the CP 140s still restricted from operating on gravel ?

Big handicap when operating up north...

They have done it, plus landed on ice but it is not the norm. T/O field length is still an issue up north as you need recommended 5000' unless light (might be different on gravel - haven't checked), stopping no prob. Range is ~4000nm, endurance easily 11 hrs if you can loiter/hang around in one area with 1 or 2 engines shut down - #1 is normally shut down IAC once the aircraft is on-station/in the operating area as it isn't required once AUW has dropped a bit (restarted for transit home).