# "UAVs for Arctic, maritime and border surveillance--and emergency response"



## MarkOttawa (13 Jun 2008)

A post at _The Torch_:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/06/uavs-for-arctic-martime-and-border.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Aug 2008)

I can also see the day when Canada buys a large UAV capable of being armed similar to the Reaper, they would do well on both the current deployment and UN peacekeeping missions in remote areas due to their long loiter times. Such an aircraft would give us air support without having to buy ground attack aircraft.


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Aug 2008)

The Italians, already:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/18/221547/italy-approves-deal-for-four-predator-b-uavs.html



> Flown by the air force's Amendola-based 32nd Wing, Italy's current Predator A fleet has amassed more than 3,000 flight hours, including operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.



Plus:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20080806.aspx



> August 6, 2008: Italy is buying four U.S. MQ-9 Reaper UAVs. The Reaper was designed as a combat aircraft that also does reconnaissance. The Reaper can carry over half a ton of GPS or laser guided bombs, as well as the 250 pound SDB (small diameter bomb), or Hellfire missiles. The earlier Predators cost about $4.5 million each (with sensors, about half as much without), while the Reaper goes for about $9 million (with sensors). The Italians will be paying $330 million for the four UAVs, three ground stations, five years of technical and maintenance support, spare parts, and training. Italy already operates six MQ-1 Predators, and has used them in Iraq.
> 
> At the same time, the German military sought to buy five MQ-9s, but with a smaller support package, one that will cost $205 million. Several other factions in the government publically opposed this sale, considering the purchase of armed UAVs as too aggressive...



Want to put odds on future Canadian UAVs being armed?
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/ministers-mackay-paradis-announce-equipment/story.aspx?guid=%7BDFA7EDB9-56F7-459C-BE7F-8319F3CC82EE%7D&dist=hppr



> "A long term UAV solution is currently being developed that will include domestic and deployed operational UAV capabilities."



More here:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/11/armed-uavs.html



> The air chief also says the technology hasn't evolved sufficiently.
> 
> "For a while there, we flirted with technology," Watt said in a recent interview.
> 
> ...



But is that not the UAV pilot?  How PC we are, almost as bad as the Germans.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Loachman (23 Aug 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Such an aircraft would give us air support without having to buy ground attack aircraft.



Nope - not by a long shot.

From the post following yours: "The Reaper can carry over half a ton of GPS or laser guided bombs, as well as the 250 pound SDB (small diameter bomb), or Hellfire missiles." Half a ton divided by 250 lbs equals how many SDBs? Expend those, and wait how long for a follow-on Reaper to show up? It has its useful features, but, like anything, shortcomings as well.



			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> But is that not the UAV pilot?



Yes. And the rest of the crew, and the higher HQ(s) watching the live feed. I don't know what he's going on about.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Aug 2008)

My understaning is that the Reaper can stay on station for up to 14hrs, although I suspect an jet fighter could also with refueling, I suspect the pilots would not be at their best. I will not be surprised to learn that they are already working on a airborne refueling system for large UAV's. 

I can see for smaller militaries like ours that UAV's offer up capacity that would compliment manned fighters, leaving the fighters to protect the UAV's, tankers, AWACs and the UAV's can be the bomb trucks.


----------



## Loachman (23 Aug 2008)

So, two hours into one's mission one expends all four 250 lb bombs on a target of opportunity. What then? Plenty of loiter time left, but no weaponry.

Fighters do not need to stay on station for that long. They can be replaced frequently and easily, once weaponry is used up.

I see little benefit to refuelling UAVs while airborne.

Half a ton of weapons does not make a "bomb truck" - more like a little red bomb wagon, and that's a limitation. No UAV yet comes close to the payload of a manned fighter.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Aug 2008)

In that scenario the fighter wins, what about overhead cover for a FOB or a convoy that takes 7-10 hrs? It would be nice to have both assets in theatre, but even with our current government they still have not moved any fighter assets over, I suspect that a UAV squadron offers a solution that might appeal to governments and still provide some organic air cover.


----------



## GAP (23 Aug 2008)

> overhead cover for a FOB or a convoy that takes 7-10 hrs



That and constant overhead overview of TIC's would prove UAV's value......


----------



## Loachman (23 Aug 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> In that scenario the fighter wins, what about overhead cover for a FOB or a convoy that takes 7-10 hrs?



Define "cover".

The UAV provides observation of the area surrounding a convoy's route, or a fight, or other area of interest. That is what we are doing now with Sperwer, although its capabilities are sorely limited and it is noisy. Some larger UAVs have the ability to carry limited weaponry, but once that's gone it's gone and the UAV either carries on unarmed or returns prematurely leaving no aerial observation for some time. My issue was with your statement that "Such an aircraft would give us air support without having to buy ground attack aircraft."

It would not. These are, for the foreseeable future, two distinct roles. Artillery and AH are also in the mix, and can be directed/assisted by a UAV as can CAS. We have been doing that for a couple of years now.

I do agree that, if possible, a UAV should be armed in order to deal with targets of opportunity and immediate very high threats, based upon my unarmed Kiowa experience.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> even with our current government they still have not moved any fighter assets over,



There does not seem to be a need, and there is also little space available at KAF.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect that a UAV squadron offers a solution that might appeal to governments and still provide some organic air cover.



Again, two very different roles.

The UAV is another tool, but it doesn't replace any existing one - yet, at least.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Aug 2008)

I would love to see a dedicated ground attack squadron in the Air force built around new improved A10, (I certainly would not want a new F-35 doing strafing runs and risking getting shot down). But I  don't see it happening, a armed UAV squadron give us extra ground attack capability at a reasonable cost, along with long loiter times for observation duties. As you point out there is no room for us at KAF, a UAV squadron might be more deployable and being Canadian we would have priority on it's services. Plus if one is shot down we don't lose a pilot and of the political headaches that implies.


----------



## Loachman (23 Aug 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I would love to see a dedicated ground attack squadron in the Air force built around new improved A10,



Not going to happen in a military this small. Few others, larger than us, can afford that level of specialization either.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> I certainly would not want a new F-35 doing strafing runs and risking getting shot down



A10s are not invulnerable.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> a armed UAV squadron give us extra ground attack capability at a reasonable cost,



No, it wouldn't.

Once more, no, it wouldn't.

At any cost.

It would, at most, permit limited engagement of targets of opportunity or immediate high threat targets while conducting normal ISTAR missions.

Four 250 lb bombs does not make a ground attack aircraft.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> along with long loiter times for observation duties.



That is it, right there.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> a UAV squadron might be more deployable



The larger ones require a runway. I have not yet heard what arrangements are being made.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Plus if one is shot down we don't lose a pilot and of the political headaches that implies.



I fail to see any such implication. Why would the loss of a pilot should cause any more "political headaches" than the loss of a Soldier? Or six, as we have lost in a single RG-31?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Aug 2008)

I agree it's not going to happen although a lot of smaller nations have ground attack, such as the SU-25, Super Tucano, not sure if the Puraca is still in service.

I know the A10 is *not* invulnerable, but they did a fine job in protecting it as much as they could.

9 aircraft, ground stations and support for slightly more than the  estimated cost of 3xF35

_[edit] Germany
Germany has made a request to purchase five Reapers and four ground control stations, plus related support material and training. The request, being made through the Foreign Military Sales process, was presented to Congress through the Defense Security Cooperation Agency on August 1, 2008 and is valued at US$205 million.[22][23]


[edit] Italy
On August 1, 2008, Italy submitted a FMS request through the Defense Security Cooperation Agency for four aircraft, four ground stations and five years of maintenance support, all valued at US$330 million.[22][24]_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-9_Reaper


Ok "bomb truck" is a poor choice of words, but it still provides a service in an area we are lacking( my understanding is that only a small number of the CF-18's have been upgraded with the new aiming pods), both in delivery of missiles and bombs plus monitioring and intelligance. 


whining kids must go back to real life...


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Aug 2008)

The Hornets are all upgraded to the same level


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Aug 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The Hornets are all upgraded to the same level



Does that mean there are all equipped with the new pods or is it that the aircraft are capable of having the pods fitted?


----------



## SupersonicMax (24 Aug 2008)

They don't have a fixed configuration.  The configurations changed depending on the mission they have to do.  Every aircraft will be capable (ie: wired) for the new pod.  We doN,t need 80 pods for 80 airplanes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Aug 2008)

Do we have enough pods to equip a squadron/flight of aircraft if they are required to deploy?I ask because I vaguely remember that there was a concern about the number purchased.


----------



## SupersonicMax (24 Aug 2008)

I guess it depends on the missions you need to do and the number of jets you need to do it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Aug 2008)

Nevermind found the information I was looking for

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/sniper-pods-to-equip-canadas-f18s-03186/

36 pods so about half the fleet could be equipped at one time.

I wonder how the pods sensors compare with the Reapers, also I suspect air speed and vibrations play a part as well?


----------



## SupersonicMax (24 Aug 2008)

From very good sources, the sniper pod is an excellent pod.  I can'T see how airspeed will affect the pod and most of these things are stabilised, to the vibration point is moot.

Max


----------



## aesop081 (24 Aug 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> also I suspect air speed and vibrations play a part as well?



The Sniper pod has been tested on the B-1B Lancer so i dont think its much of a challenge for use on the Hornet.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Aug 2008)

I wasn’t clear, I suspected that those factors play a part for both the UAV’s and the jets in the clarity of images. I know from tests we did in the CCG that vibrations effect even stablized optics degrading the range they are useable, more so with digital stablization. Mind you stablized is still better than not! 
In a perfect world the mount and airframe are designed to reduce as much vibrations as possible and the stablization deals with the rest and movement caused by flying through the air. As for airspeed I was guessing that higher speeds make it harder to stay focused on the target.


----------



## Loachman (25 Aug 2008)

We put high-magnification systems on helicopters, which have way more vibration than anything seized-wing, and the stabilization works just fine.


----------



## aesop081 (25 Aug 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> In a perfect world the mount and airframe are designed to reduce as much vibrations as possible



I operate the MX-20 EO/IR and have 4 Allison T-56 engines with Hamilton Standard props generating vibration that rival that of Loachman's helos. Vibration is hardly an issue.




> As for airspeed I was guessing that higher speeds make it harder to stay focused on the target.



I travel through the air considerably faster that my whirlybird-flying brother Loachman and a combination of operator training and modern technology makes that a non-issue as well.


----------



## Loachman (25 Aug 2008)

Sounds like we have a competition shaping up - whose vibrations are the most powerful.

In any case, definitely no issue for the systems being vibrated.


----------



## eurowing (25 Aug 2008)

Try this site for UAV info.

www.uavs.ca

Be sure to find the pretty yellow one under applications.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Aug 2008)

I was attached to the RPV trials in the 80's at Suffield, RPV being what they now call UAV's. The test bed aircraft used a glorified chainsaw motor and video camera was mounted on a ring underneath, crude by today's standards, but it worked mostly, except for the periodic encounters with the ground. We supplied the artillery to fired at the targets using the camera. I have the program insignia around here somewhere I will have to scan it.


Cdn aviator We had cut down Hamilton standard props on our hovercraft, they were designed to work at higher speeds than our hovercraft went, they were not so good in reverse thrust. But they were a lot cheaper than the proper propellers. Also nothing like getting a "re-manufactured propeller assembly" with a blade 3/4 longer than the others, that will cause some vibration as well! 

Thanks for the answers.


----------

