# CF seeking 3 or 4 manned fixed-wing ISR planes



## The Bread Guy

This from buyandsell.gc.ca:


> .... The Department of National Defence has a requirement to acquire an enduring, operational level, multi-sensor Manned Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) capability, deployable on short notice to provide dedicated support to DND operations domestically or internationally.  To meet its requirements, DND may look to acquire the aircraft and Prime Mission Equipment (PME) as well as the support for both the aircraft platform and the PME.
> 
> The intent of this Letter of Interest (LOI) is to solicit market information, including price and availability and delivery schedule, as well as to determine industry interest in responding to a potential Request for Proposal (RFP) for the needed resources ....


More from some of the bid documents:


> .... DND has a potential requirement to acquire and sustain a minimum quantity of three (3) to a maximum quantity of four (4) (preferred) airworthy aircraft, all being the same type and configuration, which have the notional level of capabilities as per the following rudimentary requirements:
> 
> a. Airworthiness - Each modified aircraft proposed shall have a valid airworthiness certificate upon delivery. All aircraft must be globally self-deployable (multi-engine) and able to transit through domestic and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) civilian-controlled and military-controlled airspace;
> 
> b. Mission Aircraft performance – The un-refueled range of the platforms shall be a minimum of 2000 km (greater range is preferred) at normal cruise power while carrying a minimum crew of two (2) pilots and approximately 1200 lbs of mission payload (two (2) sensor operators with PME  installed and operating);
> 
> c. Aircraft Life – Each aircraft shall, upon receipt, have minimum sufficient life remaining for 10 years/10,000 hours of usage (for this LOI assume an average usage of four (4) flying hours per engine cycle);
> 
> d. Configuration of Cockpit –Aviator Night Vision Imaging System (ANVIS) compatible cockpit with suitable avionics to support flight in international airspace and integration into military coalition operations (i.e. military transponders with Mode S, encrypted radios, Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) 2, Pro-Line 21, etc.);
> 
> e. Configuration of mission suite – Each aircraft shall be delivered with the PME, as stated in paragraph 3.2. If the supplier cannot acquire the needed PME, due to International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) or similar constraint, the supplier would then state the assumption that the specific PME system would be Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), and the contractor integration would allow for the PME to be fitted for but not with. “Fitted for but not with” is defined as to have the airworthiness approved physical, electrical, data and software interfaces installed without the Line Replaceable Units (LRU) mounted.  The required aircraft integration configuration includes all structural and electrical modifications including bulkheads, cables, cable connectors, antennas, fairings, man-machine-interfaces, etc. for the PME to be used operationally; and
> 
> f. Aircraft Survivability Equipment (ASE) - Each platform shall be delivered fitted for an ASE suite, as stated in paragraph 3.3, but not with. “Fitted for but not with” is defined above (3.1 e) and includes the mounts, fairings, cables, and cable connectors for the ASE LRUs (sensors, dispensers, and cockpit displays/controls, etc.) for the ASE to be used operationally ....



Deadline for this first step:  2013/09/30 14:00 EDT


----------



## Duckman54

Budget version of the P-8 Poseidon?

http://www.casr.ca/ai-boeing-msa-global-express.htm     (Speculated/proposed)
http://www.casr.ca/ai-boeing-msa-challenger.htm          (Selected)

Made-in-Canada solution?  Or izzat too simple?

Wonder if the Brits ever found a buyer for their lightly-used Sentinels they bought from Montreal few years back... If I recall, those were some pretty seriously capable aircraft! Last I read, they were pretty desperate to make a deal, could be picked up for a bargain! Not like we don't have any experience with the type! 

When your "Global Supply Chain" consists of sending some young Pte out in a pickup truck to dash across town for some urgently-needed spare part, well that ain't too shabby!   "And grab us a Timmies on the way back, eh?"


----------



## The Bread Guy

Duckman54 said:
			
		

> .... Wonder if the Brits ever found a buyer for their lightly-used Sentinels they bought from Montreal few years back... If I recall, those were some pretty seriously capable aircraft! Last I read, they were pretty desperate to make a deal, could be picked up for a bargain! Not like we don't have any experience with the type! ....


Buying used/barely used from the Brits hasn't been without its bumps in the road.


----------



## dardt

How about the new E2-D Hawkeye ? Too expensive for Canada ?  We could tag along on the US Navy's order.


----------



## UnwiseCritic

This actually sounds like a good investment


----------



## The Bread Guy

Flatspin said:
			
		

> How about the new E2-D Hawkeye ? Too expensive for Canada ?  We could tag along on the US Navy's order.


Smaller twin-engine planes have been used for similar work in the past.

Other options?

USAF Global 6000 E-11A (Bombardier product - lotsa pork barrel tidbits regional industrial benefits to be had)
Q400 turboprop (another Bombardier product - see above)


----------



## UnwiseCritic

It will be interesting to see how the selection process unfolds given the criticism of the F-35 acquisition.


----------



## h3tacco

IF I was to guess this is for a King Air type platform.

Something along the lines of a MC-12 variant.


----------



## garb811

Queue this option in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

Viking DHC-5NG Buffalo NG.

Might as well have a common FWSAR and ISR airframe, right?


----------



## Duckman54

NOW you're talkin'!!  Go Buff!    
Only 1200 lb mission package?  That would leave LOTSA room for aux fuel... Then talk about loiter time!

You're absolutely right in that we got hosed on the sub deal...  Spent more time in the garage so far than that 'ol vintage MG project few of us got going...   Difference here is WE BUILT THE SENTINAL! Heck, the Brits are in tight money situation... Assume the payments?  Voluntary repo?   Lol.


----------



## The Bread Guy

h3tacco said:
			
		

> IF I was to guess this is for a King Air type platform.
> 
> Something along the lines of a MC-12 variant.


Zero inside information on my part, but if I had to bet a loonie, I'd bet this way, too (especially since it's a solution already used).


----------



## h3tacco

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Zero inside information on my part, but if I had to bet a loonie, I'd bet this way, too (especially since it's a solution already used).



Likewise zero inside information. 

I also think we could probably guess the customer.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Another Bombardier possibility:



> L-3 Spins SPYDR's Web at Dubai Air Show
> Dubai Air Show » November 15, 2011
> ...
> The SPYDR aircraft here is similar to the MC-12W, but Smith claims that L-3 is unique in being both sensor and platform-agnostic. “We are ready to partner in-country to meet specific requirements, using different sensors” he said. In fact, substitution of the SIGINT system may become necessary if the U.S. does not permit wide export of the company’s Rio suite which features added UHF scan capability...
> 
> As for alternative platforms, L-3 has been _talking to Bombardier about an ISR version of the Q400 turboprop airliner_ [emphasis added].
> http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/dubai-air-show/2011-11-14/l-3-spins-spydrs-web-dubai-air-show



See also C4ISR here:
http://www.bombardier.com/en/aerospace/specialized-aircraft/specialized-mission-types.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Quirky

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> It will be interesting to see how the selection process unfolds given the criticism of the F-35 acquisition.



The Canadian public, and media for that matter doesn't care. Everyone is an expert when it comes to fighter jets.  :


----------



## Zoomie

"Global self-deployable" infers capable of flying in the high structure - pretty much eliminates any Buff-NG.

BE200/350 would be most cost effective platform. Q400 is a good made-in-Canada option, just a little bit of overkill.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

How about this baby?

EADS C295 AEW

It has the Israeli aew system that's pretty good.


----------



## MAJONES

Zoomie said:
			
		

> "Global self-deployable" infers capable of flying in the high structure - pretty much eliminates any Buff-NG.
> 
> BE200/350 would be most cost effective platform. Q400 is a good made-in-Canada option, just a little bit of overkill.



That has the advantage of fleet commonality with the MEUF.


----------



## OldSolduer

Quirky said:
			
		

> That is so true.


----------



## blacktriangle

h3tacco said:
			
		

> Likewise zero inside information.
> 
> I also think we could probably guess the customer.



I was actually thinking the same thing when I first saw this thread...I bet you are probably not far off.


----------



## Zoomie

MAJONES said:
			
		

> That has the advantage of fleet commonality with the MEUF.



Moot point as scuttlebutt says MEUF is gone soon.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Update - potential bidders get a chance to chat up CF folks later this week.

More in the attached bid document update.


----------



## McG

Duckman54 said:
			
		

> Budget version of the P-8 Poseidon?


I would hope our future ISR platform is multi-role capable of both maritime surveilance & patrol (incl ASW) and ground surveilance.
We need both capabilities, but we cannot afford seperate units and airframes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

TC operates King Airs, among others

Surveillance Fleet

    de Havilland Canada Dash 7-150IR
    Bombardier Dash 8M-100
    Cessna 550 Citation II
    Beechcraft King Air C90A


----------



## The Bread Guy

Sun Media catches up with the latest ....


> The Canadian military is taking the first step toward getting new eyes in the sky to monitor the Arctic, watch domestic waters and even track movements in foreign battlegrounds.
> 
> Government officials met with possible suppliers in mid-September to gauge interest in providing "enduring, operational level, multi-sensor Manned Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) capability, deployable on short notice."
> 
> Suppliers have until Friday to tell the feds formally that they're interested in the possible project to provide three to four aircraft - even if they're used.
> 
> "Each aircraft shall, upon receipt, have minimum sufficient life remaining for 10 years/10,000 hours of usage," said officials in documents given to industry.
> 
> New planes would typically last much longer than a decade.
> 
> If Canada decides to pick up used planes, they may come from the United States or Britain.
> 
> The U.S. is set to declare up to a dozen of its turboprop MC-12W recon planes surplus next year.
> 
> Britain may also get rid of its Bombardier-built Sentinel jets after British forces come back from their mission in Afghanistan.
> 
> British Sentinels were also used to help French forces find Islamist targets in Mali earlier this year and in NATO's Libya air war in 2011 ....


Remember where you read it first


----------



## tomahawk6

Global Hawk- cost $35m.Operating cost $18,900 an hour.Range 1400nm and 42 hour endurance.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/GlobalHawk/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rq4-global-hawk-uav/


----------



## Eye In The Sky

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> and 42 hour  endurance.


----------



## Ostrozac

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Global Hawk- cost $35m.Operating cost $18,900 an hour.Range 1400nm and 42 hour endurance.



I think you're missing a decimal point on the range.

Jane's gives a comparable figure on endurance (36 hours for the RQ-4B model), but the range given in Jane's for the RQ-4B is listed as 14,000 miles (12,300 nautical miles).

1400 miles isn't a very impressive range for a country like Canada. 14,000 miles is VERY impressive.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

meanwhile back in the 30's  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_ANT-25


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bumped with the latest:  no, thanks, we'll buy American:


> .... The purpose of this notice is to advise industry that, upon completion of an options analysis of this requirement, Canada has determined it will not seek a complete Manned Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Platform solution due to reasons of security and technical feasibility.  Rather, it is anticipated Canada will competitively procure some elements and obtain the others directly from the US government ....


More from The Canadian Press here.


----------



## tomahawk6

An article that says the the US MC-12W is in the running.

* - Link removed IAW site policy - Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest:


> .... The purpose of this notice is to update industry on the Manned Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (MAISR) project. The Government of Canada will be seeking project approval to proceed with a three element approach:  The initial element will be a competitive procurement for three new, or nearly new, Beechcraft King Air 350ER platforms.  The second element will be the Prime Mission Equipment integration via a Foreign Military Sales Case competed by the United States Government. This element will leverage existing, operationally proven and airworthiness certified Military-Off-The-Shelf programs.  The last element will be the competitive procurement of In-Service Support services .... the MAISR project is still in the Options Analysis phase, which includes gaining a better understanding of the potential economic benefit of the MAISR project to Canada ....


----------



## GAP

> the MAISR project is still in the Options Analysis phase, which includes gaining a better understanding of the potential economic benefit of the MAISR project to Canada ....



and here is what we will get...........


----------



## The Bread Guy

GAP said:
			
		

> and here is what we will get...........


You wild-eyed optimist, you ....


----------



## dimsum

GAP said:
			
		

> and here is what we will get...........



Made in Quebec, bien sur.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bumped with a possible solution?  Highlights mine ....


> The MC-12W Liberty reconnaissance aircraft will be completely removed from the US Air Force’s inventory by 1 October, but Air Combat Command says all of the aircraft will go to new owners and not the boneyard.
> 
> The militerised turboprops have all but departed their home at Beale AFB in California: 11 are shifting to the US Army and 26 are destine for US Special Operations Command.
> 
> *That leaves four of the 41 aircraft unaccounted for, but a spokesman for ACC tells Flightglobal the plan for those last aircraft is still being finalised* ....


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bumped with the latest from the latest set of contract docs:  _“…. The date for Canada to host the industry day for MAISR In-Service Support procurement has changed from December 2015, to the first quarter of 2016 ….”_

That is all ....


----------



## dimsum

Update:



> The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) has announced US State Department approval for the sale of three extended-range King Air 350ER business turboprops for use in Canada's Manned Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (MAISR) programme.
> 
> Announced on 4 October, the procurement will see the three aircraft undergo 'customer unique' modifications to suit them for the role, with their mission fit being listed as including L-3 Wescam's MX-15D electro-optic/infrared (EO/IR) imager, Northrop Grumman's AN/AAR-47B(V)2 missile and laser warning system and the BAE Systems/Extant Aerospace AN/ALE-47 countermeasures dispenser system. Other onboard equipment will include L-3 Communications Systems - West's Vortex transceiver, Raytheon's AN/APX-119 IFF transponder, the Rockwell Collins AN/ARC-210 transceiver, the KGV-135A communications security module, the KIV-77 cryptographic appliqué, and the KG-250X network encryptor.
> 
> With associated tool sets, ground support equipment, airframe and engine spares, training, and logistics added in, the MAISR aircraft will cost approximately USD300 million. In programmatic terms, the Canadian Government initiated a US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process relating to its MAISR programme in April which in June evolved into a two-stage process: acquisition of the platforms and their mission systems, followed by the letting of a contract covering "complete programme" support services.



https://www.janes.com/article/83584/canada-to-acquire-trio-of-maisr-king-air-350er-aircraft


----------



## blacktriangle

Fun times.  :nod:


----------



## MarkOttawa

This acquisition will have taken over five years:



> A Few Good ISR Planes for RCAF?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/mark-collins-a-few-good-isr-planes-for-rcaf/



Warp speed or something.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dimsum

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> This acquisition will have taken over five years:
> 
> Warp speed or something.



It's almost like all the heat and light on the other projects let this one slide under the radar undisturbed.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Speaking of RADAR, I'd heard there was going to be a multi-mode set on the MAISR platforms...not listed above.


----------



## blacktriangle

Not a RADAR SME, but I'd estimate that the listed features are not all inclusive.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Not a RADAR SME, but I'd estimate that the listed features are not all inclusive.



Possible or might have been dropped off the desired kit list.  I have an RAF friend who did this stuff, and their platform didn't have an imaging RADAR...

Either way, glad to see this one moving forward.


----------



## Gorgo

So which squadron will fly them?  Or is a new squadron standing up?


----------



## MarkOttawa

One has one's doubts, esp. with this gov't:



> WEAPONIZING MAISR, ARMED KING AIRS FOR CANADA
> http://airsoc.com/articles/view/id/5b81f88a3d2d2ec0328b4567/weaponizing-maisr-armed-king-airs-for-canada



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## YZT580

What good does 3 aircraft do?  In order to sustain coverage you need at least 2 with a spare readily available.  There is your entire package.  One manpad causing even superficial damage and your response is severely limited.  As the attached article suggested, a minimum of 10 to 15 should be acquired.  3 is simply a waste of money IMHO


----------



## Good2Golf

YZT580 said:
			
		

> What good does 3 aircraft do?  In order to sustain coverage you need at least 2 with a spare readily available.  There is your entire package.  One manpad causing even superficial damage and your response is severely limited.  As the attached article suggested, a minimum of 10 to 15 should be acquired.  3 is simply a waste of money IMHO



Would be interested to see your math in the mission analysis-based deduction leading to 10-15 aircraft.  Also interested to hear about how something doing I and S and R from a reasonably expected stand-off position would be tangling with enemy MANPADS close in with AD engagement ranges.  It would seem that your opinion of value, or lack thereof, differs from that of DND, Treasury Board, Finance, PSPC and PCO, to name a few GoC Departments/Agencies. 

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## CBH99

Just to clarify, this purchase is more directed at supporting SOF than conventional operations?

If so, makes sense.  And that's the sense I got from the initial articles & concept a few years ago.  


Question though - is this the right road to go down?  Would a long endurance UAV (Newest version of Reaper or whatever it is) be better suited if it's for armed ISR coverage?

^^ I know the community has already thought this through and decided this was the road to go down.  Just asking for clarification.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I'd say ideally  you'd have both, as they have different abilities.  We don't live in an ideal world though.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bumped with the latest from the Pentagon info-machine as of 20 Dec 2019 ...


> ... Textron Aviation Inc., Wichita, Kansas, was awarded a $37,166,034 firm-fixed-price Foreign Military Sales (Canada) contract to acquire three Beechcraft King Air 350ER aircraft, program management, pilot training and field maintenance training.  One bid was solicited via the internet with one bid received.  Work will be performed in Wichita, Kansas, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2021.  Fiscal 2020 Foreign Military Sales funds in the amount of $37,166,034 were obligated at the time of the award.  U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-20-C-0012) ...


----------



## Gorgo

Well, it's a start.  Most likely, 434 Squadron will get the aircraft.


----------



## Good2Golf

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Well, it's a start.  Most likely, 434 Squadron will get the aircraft.



...or a detachment of 427.  It depends on whether the RCAF wants to chop another squadron OPCOM to CANSOF.

Regards 
G2G


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Well, it's a start.  Most likely, 434 Squadron will get the aircraft.



Why 434 Sqn?


----------



## dapaterson

Yes, I also am curious about how / why 434 would be assigned these resources.  Frankly, from a core platform perspective, they'd be a better fit under 8 OSS.

But I agree with G2G that a single SOF squadron is the most likely outcome (unless someone in the light blue world decides that it would be better to have a second SOF Sqn, which would then require an intermediate SOF Air Formation and associated C2 positions...)

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/squadron/multi-engine-utility-flight.page?


----------



## Zoomie

Not going to 434 Sqn (former EW Sqn now OT&E) or 8 OSS.  It’ll be a tan asset.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Bumped with the latest from the Pentagon info-machine as of 20 Dec 2019 ...



Link is not working, in fact the whole "www.defense.gov" website is down.

I'm assuming this is just the continuation of the original contract awarded back in Oct 2018?


----------



## dapaterson

Ditch said:
			
		

> Not going to 434 Sqn (former EW Sqn now OT&E) or 8 OSS.  It’ll be a tan asset.



To be clear, I wasn't suggesting they would or they should; only pointing out that it will be the same airframe (though likely employed somewhat differently...)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Link is not working, in fact the whole "www.defense.gov" website is down.


Working for me as of this post.  JUST in case, I've attached the text as well.



			
				Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> I'm assuming this is just the continuation of the original contract awarded back in Oct 2018?


I suspect it's follow-up of the same, too -- only there was a lot more $ involved in the initial 2018 State Dep't approval.


----------



## Good2Golf

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Working for me as of this post.  JUST in case, I've attached the text as well.
> I suspect it's follow-up of the same, too -- only there was a lot more $ involved in the initial 2018 State Dep't approval.



Not enough detail in the recent release regarding program details, vis a vis DoD/DoS budget allocated to the OEM, versus other integration elements that might not be included in that $37M figure. 

Interesting to see it in the Army programs vice the Air Force programs. Gives indication as to the potential/likely configuration the exported assets will comprise. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Retired AF Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Working for me as of this post.  JUST in case, I've attached the text as well.
> I suspect it's follow-up of the same, too -- only there was a lot more $ involved in the initial 2018 State Dep't approval.



Looks like it was my browser (Firefox); tried MS Edge and connected now problem.


----------



## tomahawk6

The Army has its own fleet of ISR aircraft. No need to rely on the USAF for support.

https://www.army.mil/article/137612/army_fixed_wing_aircraft

https://www.janes.com/article/85670/us-army-seeks-high-altitude-isr-aircraft 

Bombardier Global 6000 seems to be a potential winner.


----------



## Good2Golf

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Army has its own fleet of ISR aircraft. No need to rely on the USAF for support.



Was thinking more the difference between the EMARSS and Java Man MC-12 variants, not US DoD end user.  That said, 6000 for US Army would be a sweet rig. :nod:


----------



## Zoomie

dapaterson said:
			
		

> To be clear, I wasn't suggesting they would or they should; only pointing out that it will be the same airframe (though likely employed somewhat differently...)


Ack - the decision makers involved in this project had a very “fling-wing ” influence and thus made their calls as their experience deemed it.   Not a very attractive platform or mission from the AM community, it will have its own challenges WRT manning IMHO.


----------



## Good2Golf

Ditch said:
			
		

> Ack - the decision makers involved in this project had a very “fling-wing ” influence and thus made their calls as their experience deemed it.   Not a very attractive platform or mission from the AM community, it will have its own challenges WRT manning IMHO.



Non-hermetically shielded lav...  :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...or a detachment of 427.  It depends on whether the RCAF wants to chop another squadron OPCOM to CANSOF.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



I'm not 100% plugged in on this one, but I'd put 5 bucks on a flight that falls under 427 SOAS.  Not that weird of an idea, really.  413 has seized and rotary wing airframes, 442, etc.  427 already lives/breathes SOF.  Makes sense to me...


----------



## SupersonicMax

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Well, it's a start.  Most likely, 434 Squadron will get the aircraft.



434 has exactly 0 aircraft on its UE and fall under the RCAF.  Why would they maintain and operate a SOF aircraft, and have to set up the overhead a flying squadron has (Int, Ops, Standards, Training, Plans)?


----------



## Gorgo

Reason why I suggested 434 OE&T Squadron is that it responds to the CF Aerospace Warfare Centre.  414 EWS Squadron also falls under the CFAWC, so it made sense to me that a new and unique combat ability would go to this group and not say 427 SOA Squadron.

Or even better, reform 428 "Ghost" Squadron as a separate ISR unit.  Given it hasn't been seen on the RCAF ORBAT for quite some time...


----------



## SupersonicMax

Providing ISR is well outside the scope of an OT&E Squadron...


----------



## dimsum

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Or even better, reform 428 "Ghost" Squadron as a separate ISR unit.  Given it hasn't been seen on the RCAF ORBAT for quite some time...



...and fold the RPAS into it as well when it's stood up.  Manned and Unmanned ISR/strike platforms together in one unit


----------



## dapaterson

Dimsum said:
			
		

> ...and fold the RPAS into it as well when it's stood up.  Manned and Unmanned ISR/strike platforms together in one unit



What, we're gonna stick the Auroras in there as well?  :nana:


----------



## Zoomie

dapaterson said:
			
		

> What, we're gonna stick the Auroras in there as well?  :nana:


Plus the CC-295, since CJOC has already declared it as an ISR asset.


----------



## Good2Golf

Ditch said:
			
		

> Plus the CC-295, since CJOC has already declared it as an ISR asset.



They probably have the 147F on that list as well, what with both the 295 and the 147 (and 146) working with that crazy new (to 1990s) digital imaging technology. :nod:


----------

