Ottawa halts $1.6B upgrade

[jdobbin]

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/259008

Ottawa has halted a $1.6-billion upgrade that would extend the life of Canada's aging fleet of Aurora patrol aircraft, CBC News reports.

The Defence Department has already spent more than half the budget of the planned 10-year overhaul – adding $1 billion worth of new equipment, such as navigation systems and flight data recorders, to the 18 planes.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay on Thursday confirmed the department is considering winding down the 30-year-old fleet and replacing it with new planes.

The Defence Department says it will make a decision by Nov. 20 on whether to replace the Auroras.

Ottawa could face financial penalties if the hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts is cancelled.

The fleet monitors Canada's coasts, watching for illegal fishing, polluters, drug smugglers and foreign vessels challenging Canada's sovereignty.

Critics say Ottawa shouldn't waste the many millions of dollars already spent on upgrades.

CBC News tonight had the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and veteran Air Force officers questioning why the contract was being halted.

Even if a new plane is ordered, it will take years to get into place. And industry sources were indicating that there would be large penalties for cancelling the contract outright.

[geoffrey]

We'll be able to sell the planes with the upgraded equipment to some banana republic. It's not a complete loss. It may be more economical to upgrade when long term repair and upgrade costs are considered.

Need more details before I make a judgement on this one.

[M.Dancer]

Gosh, I remember when the Aurora was new.......sort of.....

We got them in 1980....the design though was new in 1962. The Americans call them the P-3 Orion.

[jdobbin]

We'll be able to sell the planes with the upgraded equipment to some banana republic. It's not a complete loss. It may be more economical to upgrade when long term repair and upgrade costs are considered.

Need more details before I make a judgement on this one.

We'll still have penalties according to some analysts commenting this morning on CBC Radio.

The refit program was a complete overhaul that was to run ten years and keep the planes flying for some time thereafter. The veteran pilots on the CBC last night were the ones that raised the alarm on the overhaul being stopped.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation were saying the stoppage was ill considered.

[jdobbin]

Gosh, I remember when the Aurora was new.......sort of.....

We got them in 1980....the design though was new in 1962. The Americans call them the P-3 Orion.

A complete overhaul though was to keep the planes flying safely and with the latest technology.

Even if the Tories are thinking of a new plane, it will take a while to get in place and will leave gaps in our security in the interim according to the pilots being questioned yesterday.

[old_bold&cold]

I think that the defense department might be looking at some planes more suitable to artic patrolling and landing etc. The fatc that they have momentarily stopped the upgrades, may not mean that it will stop forever. I would GUESS that it may be an issue of looking at the cost of replacing some planes as opposed to repairing and upgrading them. It would be prudent to put a hold on these things until a fair appraisal can be done on which way things would proceed. I find it strange that the comment about suitibilty for northern patrols was just a quick reference in the news, and quickly glossed over. To me it is that point alone that makes some sense it this.

[jdobbin]

I think that the defense department might be looking at some planes more suitable to artic patrolling and landing etc.

Even if that is the case, the Auroras will still have to perform until a new plane is put into service. The work is halfway done now. The Taxpayers Federation say there will be penalties if work is cancelled altogether.

If there is a gap when no patrols are done as the country waits for new planes, it will be a threat to our security.

[ScottSA]

Even if that is the case, the Auroras will still have to perform until a new plane is put into service. The work is halfway done now. The Taxpayers Federation say there will be penalties if work is cancelled altogether.

If there is a gap when no patrols are done as the country waits for new planes, it will be a threat to our security.

Hordes of refugees will descend from the North Pole and steal our soveriegnty? Good thing we have them Seakings, eh?

Edited September 21, 2007 by ScottSA

[old_bold&cold]

This upgrading of the planes is not so much that they will not fly but rather they may not have the latest detection equipment on board. But I do not think the new technolgy is making the planes safer, but maybe more efficient. If I am right, then the time it takes to do an appraisal of the situation, will not really effect the number of planes or the amount of patrols. It may well mean that instead of radar detection they will have laser detection abilities and maybe even some sub surface detection capabilities. I could be wrong but I would have to know more about the exact upgrades and just what they entail.

[ScottSA]

This upgrading of the planes is not so much that they will not fly but rather they may not have the latest detection equipment on board. But I do not think the new technolgy is making the planes safer, but maybe more efficient. If I am right, then the time it takes to do an appraisal of the situation, will not really effect the number of planes or the amount of patrols. It may well mean that instead of radar detection they will have laser detection abilities and maybe even some sub surface detection capabilities. I could be wrong but I would have to know more about the exact upgrades and just what they entail.

That sounds entirely reasonable. It depends on what the cancelled upgrades were.

[uOttawaMan]

Hordes of refugees will descend from the North Pole and steal our soveriegnty? Good thing we have them Seakings, eh?

Or the Russians.

[M.Dancer]

That sounds entirely reasonable. It depends on what the cancelled upgrades were.

The Defence Department has already spent more than half the budget of the planned 10-year overhaul – adding $1 billion worth of new equipment, such as navigation systems and flight data recorders, to the 18 planes.

They currentely use the sensor suite found in the Viking.....if the argument is we can have new planes in 10 years, then there is no reason to upgrade these unless the upgrades are modular adnd we can unplug a suite from the Aurora and plug it into the new plane.

Retired air force pilot Terry Wiseman said replacing the fleet will take years. In the interim, the Auroras will continue to age without the upgrades necessary to continue patrolling as often as they should.

Say what you will, but it was always a treat to see an Argus fly in to Canadair......it has many eyes dontcha know?

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/equi...er/argusbkg.jpg

[ScottSA]

Say what you will, but it was always a treat to see an Argus fly in to Canadair......it has many eyes dontcha know?

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/equi...er/argusbkg.jpg

Hopefully we're not basing our military procurement on what brings the largest nostalgiac lump to the throat. My mother always had a soft spot for Tiger Moths and Halifax bombers, and I like Spitfires and me 109s myself. I realize those are not far off the previous government's chosen procurement policy (as long as they were dredged out of the Bombardier museum), but this is a new day.

[Wilber]

Say what you will, but it was always a treat to see an Argus fly in to Canadair......it has many eyes dontcha know?

Also one of the most impressive when it came to generating noise.

[M.Dancer]

Hopefully we're not basing our military procurement on what brings the largest nostalgiac lump to the throat. My mother always had a soft spot for Tiger Moths and Halifax bombers, and I like Spitfires and me 109s myself. I realize those are not far off the previous government's chosen procurement policy (as long as they were dredged out of the Bombardier museum), but this is a new day.

I was found also of the Voodoo. Remember sitting near a runway at BFC Baggotville as pairs of Voodoos would take off then fire their afterburners......over and over again.....

And if you are like Wilber, you would appreciate the noise they generated. You could be stone cold deaf and still hear them in your stomach, their deafening low frequency rumble mixing with your gastric juices digesting the undigestable pancakes you ate at the mess in the morning......

[jdobbin]

This upgrading of the planes is not so much that they will not fly but rather they may not have the latest detection equipment on board. But I do not think the new technolgy is making the planes safer, but maybe more efficient. If I am right, then the time it takes to do an appraisal of the situation, will not really effect the number of planes or the amount of patrols. It may well mean that instead of radar detection they will have laser detection abilities and maybe even some sub surface detection capabilities. I could be wrong but I would have to know more about the exact upgrades and just what they entail.

The veterans last night said the upgrades were to extend the life of the aircraft as well as re-equip it with the latest technology.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/259008

Retired air force pilot Terry Wiseman said replacing the fleet will take years. In the interim, the Auroras will continue to age without the upgrades necessary to continue patrolling as often as they should.

[jdobbin]

Hordes of refugees will descend from the North Pole and steal our soveriegnty? Good thing we have them Seakings, eh?

The military analysts were saying that the patrols are part of the claims Canada makes on areas such as the Northwest Passage. They monitor traffic that is able to pass through the waters which are now ice free.

[ScottSA]

The military analysts were saying that the patrols are part of the claims Canada makes on areas such as the Northwest Passage. They monitor traffic that is able to pass through the waters which are now ice free.

I have never understood the notion that a flyover presence in any way strengthens a legal claim. I suppose it would lend some weight to our claims if we plunked New Toronto down on the ice and populated it with anyone foolish enough to want to live there, but simply flying over and waving at ships isn't going to do much.

[jdobbin]

I have never understood the notion that a flyover presence in any way strengthens a legal claim. I suppose it would lend some weight to our claims if we plunked New Toronto down on the ice and populated it with anyone foolish enough to want to live there, but simply flying over and waving at ships isn't going to do much.

The flyovers are a recognized part of the legal framework that a claim can be made to the Convention on Law of the Sea.

Each time Canada claims sovereignty is recorded and establishes both the area and timeframe of a country's claim to an area. There are other ways of doing that such as the Rangers on land as well as the Navy and Coast Guard doing patrols.

Any gaps though can be challenged by other countries such as Russia which now routinely send their own flights deep into the north.

Edited September 21, 2007 by jdobbin

[weaponeer]

Hello everyone, mind if I add my 2 cents as an Airforce guy,

The CP140s were originally purchased in 1982, 18 for anti-sub work in the N Atlantic. They were intended to work with the navy to keep the shipping lanes to Europe open in WW3. In the late 80's we purchased 3 more form Lockheed, they were the last three produced and the country that wanted then opted out so we bought them.

The CP140 is an excellent plane, and has served Canada well, however it is a victim of both age and misuse. They are 25 year old planes, they have spent 25 years flying low and slow over our ocean approaches. They have not had a major upgrade, they are tired. As for misuse, we have not used them for their intended function. Instead of using them as an anti-sub, anti-shipping weapons platform, we have used them (burning up airframe hours and life cycle) on fisheries and pollution patrols, counting fish, and every other job except that for which they were intended. Again as I have said before, it is not the militaries job to count fish and catch polluters, thats the RCMP & DFO's job. Used the CP140, you do not have to buy planes for RCMP & DFO...

Due to a lack of funding in the 90's, the Airforce mothballed three CP140's, bringing the fleet back down to 18, 13 in Greenwood NS, and 5 in Comox BC, NONE IN THE ARCTIC! As well with the lack of funding, there were fewer flying hours avail. Planes that DO NOT FLY, break. The more you fly them, the more they work!!

Another problem, the Airforce in the 90's, in order to save $$ went to a lower grade of fuel, JP5, that resulted in the CP140 fleet developing serious leaks in their fuel system. This problem has never been fixed. But the biggest problem with the CP140 is the fatigue on their wing struts. The planes all need to be re-winged in order to stay flying. It is almost cheaper to buy a new plane, which is I think the right thing to do.

Technology has advance in recent years as you all know. The Airforce is seriously looking at recon UAVs to replace the CP140's in the coastal patrol mission. As it stand now, a CP140, with 13 crew leaves Greenwood NS on a 8 hour patrol. They are using their excellent IR, and optical sensors to patrol our waters, awesome piece of kit. They are on a photo recon, surveillance patrol, essentially a 13 man UAV!!! This is a waste of time effort and manpower. We could purchase about 10 Global Hawk UAVs, and cover all three at the same time (three airborne) with only three UAV operators working in shifts on the ground. (UAV operators are not pilots, they get paid less). A Global Hawk can stay airborne for 30 hours, does not need a 13 man crew, does not get tired etc.... What would then be the smart thing to do is buy about 18 P8 armed patrol aircraft (Boeing 737 airliner maritime patrol planes, see Boeing website). These could be used as our armed, anti-sub, anti-shipping platforms, that can respond to any threat Global Hawk identifies....

As it stands, the Airforce plan from what I am told is to stop the upgrade, park 6 of the current 18 CP140's, and only operate 12. The 6 parked planes would be rotated through with the other twelve to keep the maint even throughout the fleet. The Airforce is trying to extend their life til a replacement arrives....

[weaponeer]

The flyovers are a recognized part of the legal framework that a claim can be made to the Convention on Law of the Sea.

Each time Canada claims sovereignty is recorded and establishes both the area and timeframe of a country's claim to an area. There are other ways of doing that such as the Rangers on land as well as the Navy and Coast Guard doing patrols.

Any gaps though can be challenged by other countries such as Russia which now routinely send their own flights deep into the north.

The last point,

This is because we collectively chose a nation not to give a dam about our armed forces, defending Canada has always been someone else’s responsibility. All gov't, with the exception of PM St. Laurent, neglected our defence. Now we are paying for it, and if we do not wake up soon, and put the billions required into the military, we may live to see parts of Canada take/given to someone else…

[ScottSA]

The flyovers are a recognized part of the legal framework that a claim can be made to the Convention on Law of the Sea.

Each time Canada claims sovereignty is recorded and establishes both the area and timeframe of a country's claim to an area. There are other ways of doing that such as the Rangers on land as well as the Navy and Coast Guard doing patrols.

Any gaps though can be challenged by other countries such as Russia which now routinely send their own flights deep into the north.

Link please? I'll apologize if I'm wrong, but I did some study on this land claim some time ago and I don't recall ever seeing anything about overflights having the slightest effect on the legal issue of sovereignty. Were that the case, Francis Gary Powers could have alighted from his parachute and planted the US flag, claiming Russia as US territory. I think you're making this up.

[jdobbin]

Link please? I'll apologize if I'm wrong, but I did some study on this land claim some time ago and I don't recall ever seeing anything about overflights having the slightest effect on the legal issue of sovereignty. Were that the case, Francis Gary Powers could have alighted from his parachute and planted the US flag, claiming Russia as US territory. I think you're making this up.

This was a debate between China and the U.S. several years ago in regards to Article 58 of the Law of the Sea and economic zones and flyovers.

Canada considers the Northwest Passage as part of its internal waters and the flyovers are done to monitor traffic and assert that sovereignty.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:KinBx...;cd=1&gl=ca

The EP-3 Incident (April 2001). The United States has regularly flown technologically advanced surveillance EP-3 planes along the coast of China to intercept communications and monitor coastal and offshore activities, including submarine movements, averaging about 400 such flights each year. On April 1, 2001, two Chinese F-8 fighters flew up to greet the U.S. plane and one of them collided with an EP-3E at a location about 70 nautical miles southeast of Hainan Island, destroying the Chinese plane (and killing its pilot) and damaging the EP-3E sufficiently to require it to land at Lingshui Airport on Hainan Island in China. China claimed that the U.S. plane turned sharply and veered into the Chinese plane [17], but the United States contended that it was the Chinese plane that flew erratically, pointing out that the propeller-driven EP-3 has little maneuverability and is much slower than the F-8.

China subsequently contended that the U.S. flight “violated the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which stipulates that any flight in airspace above another nation’s exclusive economic zone should respect the rights of the country concerned. Thus the US plane’s actions posed a serious threat to the national security of China” [17]. The Chinese statement went on to say that:

...the US military surveillance plane violated the principle of “free over-flight,” because the incident occurred by the US plane happened in airspace near China’s coastal areas and China’s exclusive economic waters. According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and general international law, all countries enjoy the freedom of over-flight in the exclusive economic waters of a nation. However, the Convention and general international law stipulate at the same time that the rights of the coastal country should be considered. The US surveillance plane’s reconnaissance acts were targeted at China in the airspace over China’s coastal area and its flight was far beyond the scope of “over-flight”, and thus abused the principle of over-flight freedom. The US plane’s action also posed a serious threat to China’s security interests, hence it was right for the Chinese military planes to monitor the US spy plane for the sake of China’s state security. The US plane, in violation of flight rules, caused the crash, so the US side should bear full responsibility for the incident. [17]

In this instructive statement, the Chinese spokesperson acknowledged that freedoms overflight exist over the exclusive economic zone, but also contended that these freedoms must be balanced against the security interests of coastal states.0 In another article, China’s position was explained as follows:

According to the stipulations of Article 58 of the UN Convention on Law of the Sea in addition to enjoying the freedom of flyover stipulated by the Convention, foreign aircraft should take into consideration the rights of the coastal countries, abide by the laws of the coastal countries and the rules of international law, and refrain from engaging in any activities which endangered the sovereignty, security, and national interests of the coastal countries. Even US Scholars maintain that limited by Article 58, Section 3 of the UN Convention on Law of the Sea, the freedom of flyover in an exclusive economic zone and the freedom in international waters are different in principle. [18]

This article went on to explain that “US military reconnaissance airplanes have repeatedly haunted the sky over China’s coastal waters to engage in reconnaissance activities, and ignored repeated solemn representations made by the Chinese government, which is obviously a provocation against Chinese state sovereignty. Military activities such as these are way beyond the principles of ‘freedom of flyover’ allowed by international law.” [18]

A year after this incident, a signed article in the Chinese Army’s newspaper insisted in detail that the US surveillance flights along China’s coast constituted “a bellicose act of provocation” that threatened China’s security and must stop [19]. The article said the U.S. surveillance flights were “totally illegal,” and that although Article 58 of the Law of the Sea Convention recognized overflight rights, “foreign aircraft must show consideration for the rights of the coastal states and abide by the laws and regulations of the coastal states, and may not endanger the sovereignty, security and national interests of the coastal states. Thus, the ‘free overflight’ of foreign aircraft over exclusive economic waters is restricted and conditional, and is not the kind of freedom of doing as one pleases as the United States said” [19].

[jdobbin]

The Green party blasts Harper on reduced Aurora flights in the north.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071219/...y_patrol_planes

The federal government's plan to keep 10 of the military's 18 maritime surveillance planes flying until 2020 could reduce Canada's ability to conduct search and rescue operations, says Green party Leader Elizabeth May.

May was responding to an announcement made Tuesday by Defence Minister Peter MacKay. "Are we to have a nearly 50 per cent reduction in that capacity?" May asked in a statement released Wednesday.

The minister said the latest plan will "capitalize" on the nearly $955 million the federal government has already spent refurbishing the fleet of CP-140 Auroras, but May argues the ruling Tories have broken a promise to upgrade all 18 aircraft.

The issue is a sensitive one for MacKay and May. The Green party leader plans to run against MacKay in the next federal election, contesting the Nova Scotia riding of Central Nova.

The government should be hammered on reducing the flights.

[M.Dancer]

The Green party blasts Harper on reduced Aurora flights in the north.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071219/...y_patrol_planes

The government should be hammered on reducing the flights.

It is a credit to the engineers that any of these aircraft can still operate witha degree of efficiancy. Still, to use a sub hunter and call it an SAR platform is a little disengenuous....sure a destroyer can be a maritime rescue ship.....