# JUSTAS: the project to buy armed Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) UAVs



## Jammer

CBC is reporting that UAVs (type undetermined), will be responsible for aerial surveillance of Canada's arctic regions.

Thoughts?


----------



## Bane

I approve of this measure as a good first layer in northern surveillance. I hope that this does not replace Mk1 surveillance, but merely allows crews to focus on those areas that call for it.  With the state of the Aurora program who knows, but I'm not an expert on artic or airforce anything.


----------



## medaid

I think this is an interesting step towards advancement. It will give aerial support to the Ranger patrols on the ground, as well as other resources previously limited to only mannes aerial surveilance flights. Such as cost for flight crew's pay, AvGas and other cost factors.


----------



## MarkOttawa

A post at _The Torch_:

UAVs for Arctic surveillance?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/10/uavs-for-arctic-surveillance.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG

Is there a UAV capable of carrying all the sensing & real time processing ability of the Aurora?
Would a mixed fleet of manned aircraft & strategic UAV not be more comprehensive?


----------



## MarkOttawa

MCG: See the USN's "Broad Area Marine Surveillance (BAMS) Program":
http://www.defense-update.com/events/2007/summary/auvsi07_51bams.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Greymatters

Let me get this straight - they want to patrol a triangular zone around 4,200 km at the base by 1,800 km at the top, with a resource that can only fly about 200 km per mission?  If they are talking about doing this with the existing UAV assets Canada owns and operates, then its not the stupidest idea Ive ever heard, but it gets brownie points for being close. 

It can be done, but to do it right with a UAV means buying something like the Global Hawk that can cover up to 100,000 km2 per day (although its ability to operate in Arctic climates is uncertain).  However, at a price tag in excess of 35 million each, plus all the training of staff, and a need for the construction of a northern airfield and operations center to run it from, its not exacly the most economic use of money.


----------



## medaid

I think to completely replace the manned aerial surveillance of the Arctics would be a poor decision. The UAVs could be used as an intermission patrol vehicle to substitute the lack of presence of the Aurora. So, instead of 1 Aurora patrol flight per month let's just say, you now have 1 scheduled Aurora flight per month, plus the UAV flying circles above the Arctic.  If the UAV detects something, then the Aurora could be mobilized, and or the Rangers could be dispatched for a on the ground eyeballing of the situation. 

Does that sound feasible at all?


----------



## tomahawk6

Global Hawk is more than able to handle the mission, a bit pricey compared to the Reaper version of the Predator. I would think you could use Yellowknife or Whitehorse in the west and Alert in the east to control the UAV's.


----------



## aesop081

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Global Hawk is more than able to handle the mission, a bit pricey compared to the Reaper version of the Predator. I would think you could use Yellowknife or Whitehorse in the west and Alert in the east to control the UAV's.



Ok....

So Global Hawk is up there and finds something.........now what ?

If that much touted underwater sound detection system locates a sub....what is Global hawk going to do about it ?


----------



## tomahawk6

When was the last time a maritime surveillance aircraft dropped ASW on a submerged sub ?


----------



## aesop081

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> When was the last time a maritime surveillance aircraft dropped ASW on a submerged sub ?



So what you are saying is that we will *NEVER* have to search, localize, track and attack a sub in our waters.......*EVER* ?


----------



## Sub_Guy

ASW is dead....... Yeah that's it....... Never to be seen again.... No more submarines...  

I had read somewhere that UAV's can only be flown in restricted airspace, have they been cleared to ripped around pretty much any where?

For controlling the UAV's couldn't they be controlled from pretty much anywhere via satlink?  Or do we need to set up shop up north?


----------



## aesop081

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I had read somewhere that UAV's can only be flown in restricted airspace, have they been cleared to ripped around pretty much any where?



As far as i know they cannot fly "due regard", which is the conditions where most of our work is done when doing surveillance patrols.



> For controlling the UAV's couldn't they be controlled from pretty much anywhere via satlink?  Or do we need to set up shop up north?



Funny thing about satelites and operating up north........doesnt always work out so good


----------



## tomahawk6

Isnt the area pretty well frozen in winter ? Perhaps the UAV and the underwater detection system can work in winter and a manned system when the water is open ? 

Has the government decided not to replace the Aurora with a new aircraft ?


----------



## aesop081

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Isnt the area pretty well frozen in winter ?



The whole premiss of the debate is because the arctic is melting and the waterways opening up for navigation.

The rest of your post clearly shows that ASW is not your area.......


----------



## tomahawk6

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The whole premiss of the debate is because the arctic is melting and the waterways opening up for navigation.
> 
> The rest of your post clearly shows that ASW is not your area.......



I wondered when you would make that point. However, it wont preclude me from asking questions or making comments. I fully understand the value of ASW and the submarine threat isnt going away. I was trying to work within the Canadian premise of patroling the region with UAV's in conjunction with a planned underwater submarine detection system.


----------



## aesop081

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I wondered when you would make that point. However, it wont preclude me from asking questions or making comments. I fully understand the value of ASW and the submarine threat isnt going away.



Fair enough, i'm just trying to make the point that you can do all the surveillance you want but it doesnt do you any good if you cannot act on the information should you decide to take that course of action.  UAVs, provided we can make them work up north, do not allow us to opose foreign submarines should we chose to do so. I'm also trying to answer your questions/comments with due regard to OPSEC and ASW makes that difficult.




> I was trying to work within the Canadian premise of patroling the region with UAV's in conjunction with a planned underwater submarine detection system.



Most people on this site seem to think that this is all thats required.....UAVs and some form of SOSUS network, manned MPA be dammned. This notion is false and this is obvious by the recent decision by the CAF to look at a manned replcement for the CP-140.


----------



## tomahawk6

I agree that a manned system is preferred. After all the USN has selected a 737 platform for their P-3 replacement although I am sceptical of the USN decision to go with a jet aircraft. Not a pilot as you point out but I would think your endurance is better with a turbo prop.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

With all respect to the guys that do the work, but some of the hyperbole getting thrown around doesn't really advance the debate.  I think even the most ignorant civvie (myself included) recognizes that UAV's do not provide a complete solution.  The question becomes what do they do well and are there opportunities to integrate them into a larger surveillance and interdiction model the provide better northern security than we have now?

Without being privileged to know OPSEC information like i) Aurora under-ice anti-submarine detection capabilities; 
ii)  Aurora patrol schedules (are they one a day, twice a week, once a month, or whatever); etc., much of the debate is restricted.

What I think we can agree on is we need a more constant footprint in the North and the more we can move to a 24/7 surveillance & interdiction model, the better.

With that in mind, we have two separate potential threats:
1) Surface Vessels passing through what we deem to be territorial waters.
2) Submarines passing through what we deem to be territorial waters.

Essentially, if we want to claim "sovereignty" over that waterway, then we need to be able to assert it.

Bluntly and as per a previous post I think that necessitates very visable demonstrations of power in that region, the most important being escorting heavy armed icebreakers for any surface vessel that wishes to traverse the waterway.  Only after the flow of surface vessels is controlled (which I believe to be a benchmark in our sovereignty claim) does ASW in the arctic in any way hit my priority screen.  (Of note, the importance of this investment is exactly why I haven't jumped on the SSK bandwagon due to the fact that with budget restrictions a new SSK purchase by its existance eliminates many other investments which I believe to be of greater importance).

RE:  UAV's like Global Hawk being weapons-free - I cannot fathom any UAV ever replacing manned aircraft in the armed interdiction role.  I think where they can play a significant role is in providing additional lower-cost patrols that otherwise we couldn't afford to execute.  In short, UAV's will never be a replacement - but instead a supporting asset.


Matthew.


----------



## aesop081

:

I give up....i'm going back to my airplane. Let me know how it all works out.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Matthew you can't just ignore one aspect of the Arctic for another. It has to be all or nothing. Yeah its great we can keep ships from violating our borders but to ignore the sub surface and air threat is just ludicrous.

As for your comment on hyperbole, once gets tired of people hinting that we do not know our jobs or that something that you may have a better idea of whats going on even though you might never hunted a sub in your life. Hence the frustration of Cdn Aviators post. One of his primary jobs is hunting subs....full stop! If he went in and started to tell the boys in the infantry forum that section battle drills are out to lunch because he knows a better approach, what do you think they are going to tell him?


----------



## SupersonicMax

CDN Aviator doesn't want to loose his job (or refuses to believe he will one day )


----------



## aesop081

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> CDN Aviator doesn't want to loose his job (or refuses to believe he will one day )



 :

My job is rather secure either way thank you very much.  Someone has to operate the UAV sensors.


----------



## Bandit1

It's 0158 here in Toronto, and I know I'm tired, but I don't think I misread when Matthew said that ASW isn't a priority.  Matthew, with all due respect to you, the sub surface threat is one that not only is in existence now but has been since the innovation of the nuclear submarine oh so many years ago.  There is plenty of video and photographic evidence which can be found in the main stream media that supports the fact that the subs of Russia and other countries have and continue to be present in what are recognized as our waters.  As a result of this clear and obvious threat, it is of vast importance that we maintain a manned vehicle presence in the arctic.

Now, what would I use to protect our sovereignty?  Here's how I see it working itself out.

The "Q" becomes home to a 3 ship of Aurora's responsible for our manned aerial presence in the area.  We know that they and their crews are more than capable of looking after us along with the Hornets to help us sleep at night.

I would then purchase some Global Hawks, perhaps 4 of them (2 for each coast), and have them perform aerial surveillance for the coastal regions with the Aurora's being sent out should a threat be assessed to be significant.  I know that there won't be an answer to this, but I'm basing the location of the Global Hawk's deployment based on the assertion that there is less of a tactical threat found on either of our shores than that which is present in our North.  I could be wrong, and I'm willing to swallow my words if I am.

Eventually the Aurora's will need to be replaced or upgraded.  I vote for upgrades which will give them a greater life span.  I'm not convinced that the P8 is the answer to our MPA future, simply because of its range and time on station capabilities when compared to the Aurora.  That, and I think that the sound of Alisons is much nicer.  Realistically, however, with Australia recently jumping on board with their purchase of the Wedgetail (a Poseidon variant), I see Canada heading in the same direction in the not so distant future.  Going along further with this prospect is that the US DoD will follow a program similar to the JSF, in that there would be involvement from nations which would be considered prospective users of the Poseidon, chiefly those who currently use the P-3 airframe.

Unlike P-3's used in other countries, however, our Aurora's pack a greater punch internally which, in my own opinion, would be hard to replace given the situations we find ourselves now using this amazing aircraft for.

Bandit


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Matthew you can't just ignore one aspect of the Arctic for another. It has to be all or nothing. Yeah its great we can keep ships from violating our borders but to ignore the sub surface and air threat is just ludicrous.
> 
> As for your comment on hyperbole, once gets tired of people hinting that we do not know our jobs or that something that you may have a better idea of whats going on even though you might never hunted a sub in your life. Hence the frustration of Cdn Aviators post. One of his primary jobs is hunting subs....full stop! If he went in and started to tell the boys in the infantry forum that section battle drills are out to lunch because he knows a better approach, what do you think they are going to tell him?



Ex, I'm not hinting any of you guys don't know your jobs.  You've all forgotten more than most civvies will ever know.

My point is simply that getting caught up in the capabilities/failings of one platform vs another, there are times when we lose sight of the forest for the trees.  

My assessment remains that there are multiple different debates occurring in one thread that need to be broken out.  

First is a political one.  Regardless of nuclear submarines transiting our arctic waterways, the first step towards asserting sovereignty remains controlling surface traffic.  And since the political objective of establishing sovereignty supercedes our right to sink nuclear submarines transiting our waterway (if we don't have a certified right of ownership, we don't have a right to defend it), we have to use our limited budget to start there.

Second is the first military one which only becomes relevant in the arctic context after we've demonstrated, asserted and secured sovereignty on an international basis.  From a military perspective, again I haven't seen anyone argue manned aircraft are obsolete.  In sharp contrast, I think there's general agreement they're essential.  The debate therefore is how do we transition from our current fleet and operations into the future given the developing capabilities of UAV's and how do we integrate all systems to provide the best mix of surveillance and interdiction capabilities.  For those that have not read my previous posts on the topic which now go back a couple of years, I've advocated a layered approach to coastal and artic patrols.  In a very similar model to what Bandit has just proposed, I've long advocated utilising lower-operating cost assets (unarmed where necessary) in the surveillance "hunter" role, and once detected begin vectoring in your "killer" armed assets.

Regardless, I sincerely wish you guys would not take everything posted by a civilian as a perceived slight against your knowledge or experience and take personal offence from it.  Yes there are trolls out there, but they're very easy to identify.  In 99% of non-troll cases (and 100% of cases involving me) insulting or demeaning you is *never* the intention.  In this respect I honestly don't know what to say as I've seen it so many times on this forum from very many very smart people and each time I see it, it baffles me.  I bluntly do not know if this is a military culture issue or not (this is not a criticism!).  I can tell you from my private sector standpoint, there exists a constant state of objective criticism and group problem solving moving ever closer to wikinomics model than based on any type of hierarchy.  In meetings, I run with CEO's, COO's, CFO's, etc., there is very little attachment to one's concept or model.  Instead, everything is extremely fluid and blunt analysis is done without the emotional vesting that appears to exist in this environment.

I may be slitting my own throat but if my assessment does that, perhaps I've overstayed my welcome anyway.  

Regardless, I'm the guy on the street who does walk up to you, salutes and says thank you for everything you do.


Best wishes, Matthew.


----------



## McG

Ref the idea of flying unmanned eyes & manned killers:

Do not forget some of the technical challenges.  Transmitting live sensor feed from a UAV to a control station can demand a lot of BW.  The more sensors (& the more data produced by those sensors) goes to more BW demands.  At a certain point, some things have to be recorded and processed after the fact.  One of the advantages of a crewed aircraft is that it has the potential to do real time analysis without the BW limitation.  Without getting into current sensor capabilities (or potential capabilities for the future), this fact alone gives an argument not to put all the surveillance eggs into the UAV basket.


----------



## Bandit1

Matthew, 

Firstly, the political means of asserting ones sovereignty isn't necessarily the control of surface traffic.  I hate to get specific on you, but it is the control of _*ALL*_ traffic, which includes submarines.  The threat posed by subs, however, is significantly greater than the threat posed by the ships which traverse the region.  Also, to bring something else to the discussion, the government is busy mapping the seabed to see what can be claimed as our land, and more importantly, the water that engulfs it.

With regards to your second point, I think that the reason some are dismayed with your comments are that there isn't enough focus paid on what lies beneath the surface.  In not addressing that, you're not addressing what is already taking place as we type all this.  You speak of the developing capabilities of UAV's and how they are to be integrated into the defence of what is, by all rights, a very large piece of our country.  The thing is, you'll never be able to fit onto a UAV what is carried inside an Aurora.  As such, the use of the Aurora is, in my opinion, more necessary than the control of what vessels are traversing the territory in question.

With regards to your final point - it isn't considered a slight.  It simply shows that some people, in the opinion of others, don't think enough of the big picture before they make statements about what is and isn't necessary for the Forces.  I speak with probably the same people that you do, and their one goal is to provide the Forces with what they need to get the job they define done.  If you do say that you run with the people that you do, then they understand that there is never a one source solution to everything, rather it takes a multi-pronged approach to be able to handle any given scenario.  That is why there are so many companies which are creating alliances with others in order to provide the best solution for the defence of the nation.  You only have to look as far as the recent Halifax Class Modernization announcement.  If I could offer some advice here - listen to the needs of the soldier first, understand their mandate second, and then come up with a solution to whatever the issue is that encompasses *ALL* plausible scenarios.

Bandit


----------



## Greymatters

Bandit1 said:
			
		

> In 99% of non-troll cases (and 100% of cases involving me) insulting or demeaning you is never the intention.  In this respect I honestly don't know what to say as I've seen it so many times on this forum from very many very smart people and each time I see it, it baffles me.  I bluntly do not know if this is a military culture issue or not (this is not a criticism!).  I can tell you from my private sector standpoint, there exists a constant state of objective criticism and group problem solving moving ever closer to wikinomics model than based on any type of hierarchy.  In meetings, I run with CEO's, COO's, CFO's, etc., there is very little attachment to one's concept or model.  Instead, everything is extremely fluid and blunt analysis is done without the emotional vesting that appears to exist in this environment.



I think you just edited this out, but felt bound to reply to it.  if you think that defending concepts is only a 'military thing', you are mistaken, and if you havent seen it in your work sector tehn youre fortunate.  Attachment to one's ideas and theories and attacking anyone who disputes them is primarly a tactic of the academic world, not just the military world, and is also common in the private sector as well, especially when dealing with consultants.


----------



## Bandit1

Sir,

I was actually just using that as a guide when responding to Matthew's post found 2 above my own, in which he actually made that statement.

In response to your comment - I do feel that defending concepts isn't only a "military thing".  I agree with you that attachment to one's ideas and theories and the attacking of anyone who disputes them is very rampant not only in business, but also, as you pointed out, in places such as the academic world.  What used to be termed debate and entertained arguments from both sides is now becoming more and more an attack on the individual - something that I recently was confronted with when someone in one of my classes stood up and said that anyone who supports the Afghan mission is simply out to kill all Muslims from the world.  Then he turned to me and stated "That includes you."

It's starting to get a lot colder in places nowadays...

Bandit


----------



## Greymatters

Bandit1 said:
			
		

> I agree with you that attachment to one's ideas and theories and the attacking of anyone who disputes them is very rampant not only in business, but also, as you pointed out, in places such as the academic world.  What used to be termed debate and entertained arguments from both sides is now becoming more and more an attack on the individual - something that I recently was confronted with when someone in one of my classes stood up and said that anyone who supports the Afghan mission is simply out to kill all Muslims from the world.  *Then he turned to me and stated "That includes you."  *



Ouch!  That would make it quite personal, and I wouldnt blame you for responding in kind.  

Ref the example, just wanted to clarify that its pretty much the same everywhere... its hard not to defend something youre passionate about and believe to be true.  

Oh, no need to call me 'sir'.... I work for a living, etc....


----------



## Bandit1

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Ouch!  That would make it quite personal, and I wouldnt blame you for responding in kind.
> 
> Ref the example, just wanted to clarify that its pretty much the same everywhere... its hard not to defend something youre passionate about and belief to be true.
> 
> Oh, no need to call me 'sir'.... I work for a living, etc....



Sir,

Everyone older than I or of any rank gets called Sir by me...I believe in showing respect, and I do so by using the correct terminology.  With regards to responding in kind...while I wanted to affix him to a pole and drop a 2000lbs laser guided bomb on him, I've learned that it is much better to simply be nice to ones enemies while they dig themselves a deeper hole to rant and rave out of.  After all, decking him would only prove his point that military types and supporters are only violent people bent on global domination...plus, revenge is a dish best served cold.

Back to the topic at hand...

CDN Aviator ->  is it possible that the Aurora's sensor systems could be joined to any type of underwater tracking system such as the one that is being proposed by the Government in regards to this debate?  And if so, could a UAV's systems also be adjusted to work with such a system as well?

I also think that there is another option here, in that we could join some of the new Cyclones up with the Aurora's.  I realise that the Cyclones will never be Aurora's, but their presence on a Halifax Class ship could be used in some way shape or form given that multiple assets are going to be covering multiple layers of the area.  

Edit ->  On top of all that...is it time for a new Arctic air base?  One that is fully functional and can house several units tasked for the sole purpose of protecting our North?  *Something that is different from the arctic warfare training base that is being proposed?*

Bandit


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Matthew no one to my knowledge has or is asking you to leave, all we ask is careful how you bring your position across as that tends to be where the problem lies.



> but their presence on a Halifax Class ship could be used in some way shape or form given that multiple assets are going to be covering multiple layers of the area.


that is dependant on how much ice is gone and how far a Halifax class(if they are still in commission  ) can penetrate into the arctic archipelago.


----------



## Bandit1

Good point, so here is a question in return:  can a Coast Guard ship handle a Cyclone?  

I'm still in favour of creating a new Wing up there - something akin to a Navy/Coast Guard port with an airfield capable of handling Aurora's and a 5 ship of Hornets.  This would also make it easier for our new Hercs to make cargo drops up there when the time comes.

Bandit


----------



## ArcticObserver

> On top of all that...is it time for a new Arctic air base?  One that is fully functional and can house several units tasked for the sole purpose of protecting our North?  Something that is different from the arctic warfare training base that is being proposed?
> 
> Bandit



It has already been done.  This summer the Air Force quietly stood up the Inuvik FOL site and is planning to maintain a continuous presence there at least until spring of 2008, rotating squadrons of CF-18s from Cold Lake and tankers from Winnipeg.  The newest C-17's first deployment was logistics support into Inuvik and it has been there several times since then.

From an Arctic base point of view, Inuvik is ideal.  Almost right on the Arctic Ocean coast it is further west than Vancouver Island, only 200 miles from the Alaska border and 800 miles from Russian airspace.  As well, the near airspace is thoroughly painted by several North Warning radar sites.  Eielson AFB is only 450 miles away in Alaska so there is also the opportunity for mutual support on NORAD taskings.  The real ace-in-the-hole, though, is its connection to the rest of the world with an all weather highway.

I don't see any reason it wouldn't work fine as a UAV base too.

-Arctic Observer


----------



## Bandit1

Thanks for that update Sir, I appreciate it!  Seems like things have already been happening, and I'm so glad to hear about it!

Bandit


----------



## aesop081

What is the point of the headline ?


The current UAV ( Sperwer) is being replaced by the Heron UAV contract for the remainder of the Afghanistan mission. JUSTAS is the UAV project that will bring a permanent UAV capability for the CF.



> Canada's military is pushing ahead with its plan to buy aerial drones outfitted with weapons even as the Harper government is promising to pull out troops from Afghanistan in 2011.



We need them wether or not we are in Afghanistan.


----------



## GAP

I think they are confusing the future purchase of something like the Predator with the recent announcement of the Israeli UAV (Heron is it?)


----------



## Fishbone Jones

You only have to look to the source.


----------



## Sub_Guy

I get it, once the mission ends in Afghanistan, Canada will no longer need to arm its troops or acquire new equipment.


----------



## George Wallace

Just a point:  Canada, as far as I know has no intentions in buying Drones.  Not now, in the future, or even in the recent past.  

We are looking at UAVs that are RPVs, not Drones.


----------



## MarkOttawa

A post at _The Torch_:

UAVS: A story in search of fuss 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/09/uavs-story-in-search-of-fuss.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ammo

Looks like the project is wide open to what the CF will eventually acquire.
According to MERX:
Project JUSTAS Procurement of a UAV System
The Canadian Forces has a requirement to field and support interoperable, networkenabled Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Systems to provide Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR), Target Acquisition, and all-weather precision strike capabilities in support of Canadian Forces (CF) operations worldwide. The objective of this Letter of Interest (LOI) is to advise industry of the forthcoming requirement and also to request
feedback from Industry on the feasibility of currently defined project strategies with respect to scope, technical performance, schedule, and cost.

Industry is highly encouraged to offer alternatives to the project strategies outlined in this LOI. These alternatives should be accompanied by comprehensive arguments and analysis that clearly demonstrates how the proposed solution to the operational requirement is more advantageous to Canada with regard to
operational suitability and effectiveness, cost, schedule, and risk. Information received from Industry will be used to refine JUSTAS planning documents and cost tables in advance of Cabinet and Treasury Board approval.

Here is the link: http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-%24ATP-003-17562&FED_ONLY=0&hcode=3k5HS9FF5cf8vel%2fYsrQOg%3d%3d


----------



## geo

The development and use of UAVs in theatre has grown exponentialy.
What we want out of the system now VS what we wanted out of the system then (2002) are two entirely different beasts.
The 250$MM investment represents our learning curve... it wasn't a waste


----------



## Deep Blue

Hopefully the UAV's will always be overhead watching out for the troops for as long as we can it is a good feeling knowing they are there


----------



## thunderchild

I'm new to the Idea of uav's in the Arctic but I'm not sure about something,  If we patrol the Arctic with UAV's that are unarmed armed would international law still recognize our ability to defend it or remove our rights there?  or am I way out there.


----------



## aesop081

thunderchild said:
			
		

> way out there.


----------



## thunderchild

Thanks glad to hear it


----------



## MarkOttawa

As CDN Aviator said there are serious problems with satellite communications in the far north.  There are also icing issues and poor instrument landing capabilities (visibility is an obvious constraint in the north).  As someone with knowledge said, we should remember that current large US UAVs were originally mainly designed and tested by people in the sunny American west/southwest and largely honed for use in desert-like climates.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## thunderchild

good point doy you think that there are any that could fit the bill?


----------



## thunderchild

According to the Canada fist defence policy the government plans to acquire 10-15 MPA if seen a budget of $2.5 billion but that seems kind of low to me.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

thunderchild said:
			
		

> According to the Canada fist defence policy the government plans to acquire 10-15 MPA if seen a budget of $2.5 billion but that seems kind of low to me.



Considering we really don't know what the capabilities of said aircraft will be how do you know the numbers are too low. More capable platforms usually mean less numbers.


----------



## thunderchild

I don't this is what CASR said.


----------



## George Wallace

thunderchild said:
			
		

> I don't this is what CASR said.



Gee Kid!  Do you believe everything you read?  Have you read anything on Communism or Socialism?  Great ideas on paper.  They just don't work too well in real life.


----------



## aesop081

thunderchild said:
			
		

> I don't this is what CASR said.



Thats the best you can come up with ?

You said that the number from DND seems low, how about you tell us why you think that instead of regurgitating CASR or Wiki......

 :


----------



## thunderchild

Ive been slammed for this before but this is what I think,  I agree that number does seem low for what is in effect a 3 areas of operations. 1 Atlantic, 2 Pacific and 3rd the Arctic.  Currently we have 18 airframes (CP-140) for the Atlantic and pacific plus foreign deployments. Of those maybe 10 may be available for use?  Assuming 18 airframes was enough for 2 coasts then it would seem to me that 27 airframes with 3 spares would make sense assuming that what the government buys is as good as the CP-140 or better.  I will not comment on UAV's as I just don't know enough about how their sensors work but I do see them as very necessary simply because of their potential  loiter time.


----------



## aesop081

thunderchild said:
			
		

> Assuming 18 airframes was enough for 2 coasts



I'm not going to argue numbers with you but i just want to point out one thing. The CP-140 has always worked all 3 coasts, so i dont know where you are getting this idea that it only operates Atlantic and Pacific.


----------



## MarkOttawa

It's also important to keep in mind that for most of the year there isn't exactly much surface shipping in the high north, so very little need to patrol for it.  The third coast is by far the least important for surveillance purposes and will stay so for some time to come.  

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## daftandbarmy

thunderchild said:
			
		

> Ive been slammed for this before but this is what I think,  I agree that number does seem low for what is in effect a 3 areas of operations. 1 Atlantic, 2 Pacific and 3rd the Arctic.  Currently we have 18 airframes (CP-140) for the Atlantic and pacific plus foreign deployments. Of those maybe 10 may be available for use?  Assuming 18 airframes was enough for 2 coasts then it would seem to me that 27 airframes with 3 spares would make sense assuming that what the government buys is as good as the CP-140 or better.  I will not comment on UAV's as I just don't know enough about how their sensors work but I do see them as very necessary simply because of their potential  loiter time.



Nice to see you demonstrating full confidence in the effectiveness of our security arrangements on the 49th parallel  ;D


----------



## Greymatters

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Nice to see you demonstrating full confidence in the effectiveness of our security arrangements on the 49th parallel  ;D



Physical security, or economic security?  Cant say Im confident in either at the moment...


----------



## MarkOttawa

Capabilities the US now has (and which we might approach with Project JUSTAS?)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/09/uavs-story-in-search-of-fuss.html

DARPA Contract Description Hints at Advanced Video Spying
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/19/AR2008101901572.html



> Real-time streaming video of Iraqi and Afghan battle areas taken from thousands of feet in the air can follow actions of people on the ground as they dig, shake hands, exchange objects and kiss each other goodbye.
> 
> The video is sent from unmanned and manned aircraft to intelligence analysts at ground stations in the United States and abroad. They watch video in real time of people getting in and out of cars, loading trunks, dropping things or picking them up. They can even see vehicles accelerate, slow down, move together or make U-turns.
> 
> "The dynamics of an urban insurgency have resulted in a rapid increase in the number of activities visible in the video field of view," according to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
> 
> Although the exploits of the Predator, the Global Hawk and other airborne collectors of information have been widely publicized, there are few authoritative descriptions of what they can see on the ground.
> 
> But some insights into the capabilities of the Predator and other aircraft can be drawn from a DARPA paper that describes the tasks of a contractor that will develop a method of indexing and rapidly finding video from archived aerial surveillance tapes collected over past years.
> 
> "The U.S. military and intelligence communities have an ever increasing need to monitor live video feeds and search large volumes of archived video data for activities of interest due to the rapid growth in development and fielding of motion video systems," according to the DARPA paper, which was written in March but released last month.
> 
> Last month, Kitware, a small software company with offices in New York and North Carolina, teamed up with 19 other companies and universities and won the $6.7 million first phase of the DARPA contract, which is not expected to be completed before 2011...
> 
> "Now with new full-motion video intelligence techniques, we are looking at people and their behavior in public," he said.
> 
> The resolution capability of the video systems ranges from four inches to a foot, depending on the collector and environmental conditions at the time, according to the DARPA paper. The video itself is also shaped by the angle to the ground from which it is shot, although there are 3-D capabilities that allow viewers on the ground to manipulate videos of objects so they can see them from different vantage points.
> 
> Systems also exist that allow tracking, moving-target detection of objects under forest or other cover and determination of exact geographic location. Development is underway of systems that allow recognition of faces and gait -- in other words, human identification.
> 
> Currently, because there are so many activities or objects to be watched for hints of suspicious behavior, "more analysts . . . watch the same, real-time video stream simultaneously," according to DARPA. "If any of the given activities or objects are spotted, the analyst issues an alert to the proper authorities."..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## thunderchild

OK lets say that you do find a sub under the ice sheet with a uav, here is the problem if you want to sink it from the air first you have to get there with a MPA, second ice is hard how do you propose dropping a torpedo through the ice without the torpedo breaking up on the ice on impact.  It would seem to me that the best way to get that torpedo under the ice is with another sub, I'm not navy but it would seem to me that we need more than 3 Victoria class subs to patrol the whole Arctic, that works out to 1 sub on patrol, 1 sub returning from patrol and 1 sub on the way to relive the sub currently on patrol. This would not account for maintenance, training or providing submarine support for the other 2 coasts and foreign deployments.  I know we  have 4 subs but if I'm not mistaken they are all diesel electric, not suitable for under ice operations all year long. Let me know if I'm missing something.


----------



## Greymatters

In this day and age I think just tracking it would be more important than offensive force options...


----------



## thunderchild

and in this day and age if you are tracking it what do you do if you have to shoot at it if it shoots at you .. tell it to stop and invite it in for tea?  How well do you think that will work? (STOP!... OR I'LL SAY STOP AGAIN!)


----------



## Strike

thunderchild said:
			
		

> and in this day and age if you are tracking it what do you do if you have to shoot at it if it shoots at you .. tell it to stop and invite it in for tea?  How well do you think that will work? (STOP!... OR I'LL SAY STOP AGAIN!)



Uhhm, with Hornets?   :

I can't believe I'm biting.


----------



## aesop081

thunderchild said:
			
		

> and in this day and age if you are tracking it what do you do if you have to shoot at it if it shoots at you .. tell it to stop and invite it in for tea?  How well do you think that will work? (STOP!... OR I'LL SAY STOP AGAIN!)



Go back to playing PS3 .........


----------



## TCBF

Okay, this should drive you 'Arctic Dreamers' nuts:

1. Cdn Arctic SOSUS lines.
2. Recce sats in geo-stationary orbit over our arctic.
3. Conventionally armed (HE or darts) MRBMs capable of being launched from southern Canada into the arctic.
4. Long range undersea UVs.  Launch in Esquimault, patrol under the arctic ice, recover in Halifax.
5. Anti-submarine nets towed by Undersea UVs. Launch, position, go into dormancy, 'wrap' intruders, forcing them to surface.  Then see para 3 (above).


----------



## medaid

Well... Since we're just being silly now.

1 X BattleStar above the Arctic with a big frack off Maple Leaf painted on its hull.

Constant CAPs conducted by Vipers.

We retain the Arctic.


----------



## TCBF

- At least my ideas don't need people on them.  The big advantage of un-manned platforms over manned platforms is that when you turn off the engines on the un-manned platforms the whining noise stops.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

thunderchild said:
			
		

> and in this day and age if you are tracking it what do you do if you have to shoot at it if it shoots at you .. tell it to stop and invite it in for tea?  How well do you think that will work? (STOP!... OR I'LL SAY STOP AGAIN!)



You mean if the sub shoots at the UAV? From under the ice?

Not busting your chops, just trying to figure out what you're saying.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> You mean if the sub shoots at the UAV? From under the ice?
> 
> Not busting your chops, just trying to figure out what you're saying.



We have no idea what he is going on about at the best of times...


----------



## thunderchild

look my point is what good is it to track an unknown either under the ice or in the air if when god forbid the time comes to shoot at it you can't if you don't also have the ability to do so.


----------



## TCBF

thunderchild said:
			
		

> look my point is what good is it to track an unknown either under the ice or in the air if when god forbid the time comes to shoot at it you can't if you don't also have the ability to do so.



- Guys got a point.  Even the Swedes used to depthcharge submarine 'contacts' in their waters.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Guys got a point.  Even the Swedes used to depthcharge submarine 'contacts' in their waters.



I think the issue is with Reply #63


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

thunderchild said:
			
		

> OK lets say that you do find a sub under the ice sheet with a uav,


The question you need to ask is, how is the UAV tracking the sub from underneath that ice? Is there a MAD array small enough to be fitted on a UAV?


> here is the problem if you want to sink it from the air first you have to get there with a MPA


Or you can have pairs of UAVs...one sesnor and the other a weapon carrier....
,





> second ice is hard how do you propose dropping a torpedo through the ice without the torpedo breaking up on the ice on impact.


And who ever said ASW in arctic waters or any other body of water was ever easy?


> It would seem to me that the best way to get that torpedo under the ice is with another sub, I'm not navy but it would seem to me that we need more than 3 Victoria class subs to patrol the whole Arctic, that works out to 1 sub on patrol, 1 sub returning from patrol and 1 sub on the way to relive the sub currently on patrol. This would not account for maintenance, training or providing submarine support for the other 2 coasts and foreign deployments.  I know we  have 4 subs but if I'm not mistaken they are all diesel electric, not suitable for under ice operations all year long. Let me know if I'm missing something.



And had you done a search you would have seen subs, the numbers of subs etc has been discussed time and time again. Use the S-E-A-R-C-H!!!!


----------



## aesop081

thunderchild said:
			
		

> look my point is what good is it to track an unknown either under the ice or in the air if when god forbid the time comes to shoot at it you can't if you don't also have the ability to do so.



We have the capability to do so now and will continue to have it for the foreseable future. I dont understand where you are getting this idea that introducing UAVs to the mix  means we suddenly lose our capability to take lethal action. Have you been up north lately ?


----------



## McG

TCBF said:
			
		

> Okay, this should drive you 'Arctic Dreamers' nuts ... Recce sats in geo-stationary orbit over our arctic.


geosynchronous satellites cannot be put over the arctic.  They would fall out of the sky.  It is physics.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> The question you need to ask is, how is the UAV tracking the sub from underneath that ice? Is there a MAD array small enough to be fitted on a UAV?Or you can have pairs of UAVs...one sesnor and the other a weapon carrier....



For surveillance of submarines, I've suggested this before, but why not use a mini-SOSUS array in all the choke points with satellite upfeeds to a Canada Command (and if you can't hit them all, then focus on the primary routes you want to protect first).

Once you get a hit, THEN you deploy Aurora or P-8 or whatever.

Operating cost for the fixed array should be minimal as should set-up costs as long as you're using satellite feeds and not dropping wireline to each location.  In comparison, any active search system such as UAV's or MPA's are going to require higher average operating costs and most of the time will patrolling to find a whole lot of nothing (as an aside, this could assist in lowering the hours added to the Aurora airframes and allow them to operate farther into the future which is a significant cost savings on its own).

Re: Uplink Maintenance - Re-route and re-schedule Ranger Sovereignty Patrols to hit each of the units on a timeline that fits the maintenance & battery swap schedule of the each satellite station.

I should add that off-the-shelf satellite phone systems designed for the arctic now run less than $5,000.00 USD.  Adding an encryption system to the signal before it goes to the phone should be easy.

Bottom Line:  If the model has merit, in military budget terms, it should be deployable fairly inexpensively as long as the bureaucrats don't make it overly complicated for no reason.


Matthew.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> For surveillance of submarines, I've suggested this before, but why not use a mini-SOSUS array in all the choke points with satellite upfeeds to a Canada Command (and if you can't hit them all, then focus on the primary routes you want to protect first).
> 
> Once you get a hit, THEN you deploy Aurora or P-8 or whatever.
> 
> Operating cost for the fixed array should be minimal as should set-up costs as long as you're using satellite feeds and not dropping wireline to each location.  In comparison, any active search system such as UAV's or MPA's are going to require higher average operating costs and most of the time will patrolling to find a whole lot of nothing (as an aside, this could assist in lowering the hours added to the Aurora airframes and allow them to operate farther into the future which is a significant cost savings on its own).
> 
> Re: Uplink Maintenance - Re-route and re-schedule Ranger Sovereignty Patrols to hit each of the units on a timeline that fits the maintenance & battery swap schedule of the each satellite station.
> 
> I should add that off-the-shelf satellite phone systems designed for the arctic now run less than $5,000.00 USD.  Adding an encryption system to the signal before it goes to the phone should be easy.
> 
> Bottom Line:  If the model has merit, in military budget terms, it should be deployable fairly inexpensively as long as the bureaucrats don't make it overly complicated for no reason.
> 
> 
> Matthew.



Where does this obsession with submarines in the Arctic come from? It's a fricking myth no matter what the PMO says. Friendly subs travel by SUBNOTEs we issue, and the unfriendly ones can't do SFA up there anyway.

In any case, your proposal *may* have military merit. It doesn't have technical merit.  

SOSUS/IUSS don't have the proper algorithms to pull submarine noise out from the normal ice background. They will likely never have those algorithms, since the submarine noises are far quieter than the ice. Basically the signal to noise ratio is below detectability level for the sensors involved.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Where does this obsession with submarines in the Arctic come from? It's a fricking myth no matter what the PMO says. Friendly subs travel by SUBNOTEs we issue, and the unfriendly ones can't do SFA up there anyway.
> 
> In any case, your proposal *may* have military merit. It doesn't have technical merit.
> 
> SOSUS/IUSS don't have the proper algorithms to pull submarine noise out from the normal ice background. They will likely never have those algorithms, since the submarine noises are far quieter than the ice. Basically the signal to noise ratio is below detectability level for the sensors involved.



Interesting....I didn't know that.

Based on that information, what would you do if it were your call?


Matthew.


----------



## aesop081

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> as an aside, this could assist in lowering the hours added to the Aurora airframes and allow them to operate farther into the future which is a significant cost savings on its own).



No, No and......No


----------



## TCBF

MCG said:
			
		

> geosynchronous satellites cannot be put over the arctic.  They would fall out of the sky.  It is physics.



- Perhaps I should have written: Active Geosynchronous Orbit.

"Surveillance satellites use active geosynchronous orbits to maintain position and track above a fixed point on the Earth's surface. They are directed by controllers on the ground."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit


----------



## McG

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Perhaps I should have written: Active Geosynchronous Orbit.
> 
> "Surveillance satellites use active geosynchronous orbits to maintain position and track above a fixed point on the Earth's surface. They are directed by controllers on the ground."


 What you are referencing still requires orbiting of the earth and cannot be done by a satellite over either polar region.  Geostationary satellites, supporting communications in the north, are located in orbital planes which are more south than the areas supported. These orbital planes would not be well suited for a satellite intended to look down on & survey the land.

That being said, the concept you describe is theoretically possible but it has never been done because the technology is not sufficiently mature.  Do a search for "statite"


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Based on that information, what would you do if it were your call?



If I had to do it, and if the Global Warming crowd is correct, I'd establish a naval air base up there and patrol the NorthWest Passage with a mix of MPA and helos.

If the Global Warming crowd is wrong (and I think they are), you'd need SSN's.


----------



## TCBF

MCG said:
			
		

> ...  Do a search for "statite"



- Done.  Thank you.  I have now been introduced to "Orbital Mechanics."


----------



## aesop081

TCBF said:
			
		

> I have now been introduced to "Orbital Mechanics."



I was on the second period of day 1 of the Space Applications course at CFSAS when i was introduced to those words   :-\  It was at that point i got worried.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I have noticed throughout this thread that various posters chuck around satellite comms and control of UAVs like it is nothing.  I can assure you all (from my admittedly limited exposure to the problem), it is just about the biggest challenge.  Leaving aside the not inconsiderable aspects of bandwidth availability, security (both in terms of signal cryptography and the physical security and hardening against attack the ground control components like uplink sites), and cost of nationally owned satellites, there is the simple issue of physics which has only been hinted at.  If you want to reliably control a UAV above 70N, you cannot use a geosynchronous satellite- it will simply be below the horizon.  So what then?  You could go with fixed UHF antenna sites every 200kms (with generators and fixed dedicated fibre optic cabling back south), but just consider the logistics of that endeavour- we would be talking about between 50-100 dedicated comms sites, each with a harbour or airfield, scattered throughout the arctic- all requiring regular servicing.  Good luck.  The next option would be to launch our own DND satellites in a polar orbit.  IIRC my Space Apps course, you would need 3 satellites in orbit to guarantee 24/7 coverage.  You should also keep a 4th spare satellite on the ground to launch if required.  Consider that a satellite launch costs about $300 million...you are talking some serious buck here.  And then there is the question of launch facilities and capability...do we develop our own or hire rockets from the Indians...or Russians....or Chinese...or French...you see where this is going.

UAVs will have a part to play in the future of Canadian Sovereignty patrolling, but it is my prediction that the real high latitude work will be done by manned aircraft for the foreseeable future.

Cheers.


----------



## KingKikapu

Not to mention most satellite launches are done as close to the equator as possible.  It's cheapest to launch from there because of the oblate shape of the planet and the greatest tangential velocity kick, meaning less fuel is required to reach orbit. Considerably less actually.  Sadly, that option is not available for circumpolar regions if you want to stay in there, so start breaking out your wallets.  Also, there's no such thing as active geostationary satellites over poles.  *Physically impossible*.  Your fuel tank would be orders of magnitude larger than the satellite.  As for statite, the sail would need to be huge and the navigation would be pretty damn complicated.  Plus I don't imagine the equivalent of a giant neon sign bodes well for stealthy purposes (that is assuming you guys can't track enemy satellites with ease yet, which I suspect with advances in adaptive optics wouldn't be too hard at all).


----------



## thunderchild

so the problem is line of site, one satellite can't cover the area and any plan involving satellites is extremely expensive. Ground stations have limited range and need a massive amount of support and are limited to line of site. So how do we relay information to and from the UAV/UCAV in the Arctic, that is effective and affordable?  High altitude airborne command posts sound right. let the lashing begin I know its coming!


----------



## Loachman

thunderchild said:
			
		

> High altitude airborne command posts sound right.



If you're going to go to the trouble of putting a manned aeroplane up there, why not just have it do the patrol and save the additional cost and complexity of the UAV?



			
				thunderchild said:
			
		

> let the lashing begin I know its coming!



Getting flinchy, are we?


----------



## thunderchild

I agree that the best option is a manned patrol aircraft with a strong sub surface patrol force. But that can't be done with only 10 rebuilt CP-140's, 3 2nd hand SSK not enough crews and no base of operations.  So why not do something like this, 
-divide up the Arctic into patrol zones
-organize patrols into 1 control aircraft ,1 AWACS, 2-4 UAV/UCAV, 2 new MPA 
-the control aircraft can coordinate with the new Arctic patrol ships and submarines.
-this would also provide a base for communication for the airforce's new fighter the army rangers and allow that a naval vessel will be where an UAV or MPA is not.

I'm not getting flnchy I don't mind somebody tearing my Ideas appart....it forces me to listen and learn more.  Then come back with a better idea. so have at it.


----------



## McG

For watching things on the ground and in the sea AWACS is the wrong platform.  You want J-STARS, CP-140, P-3 or that nature.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

And let us not even get started on IFR certification of UAVs (which doesn't exist).  No problem you say- minor paperwork detail...yeah, until your UAV goes nose to nose with an A380 load of taxpayers on their way to Hamburg over Ellesmere Island.

And then there is the launch and recovery aspects of UAV- maybe from ice covered runways.  Which no one to my knowledge has ever tried to do.  

And no one to my knowledge has ever tried to fly a UAV into the type of winter weather we get up North.  They (currently) do not have deicing systems, amongst other things.

Again, us getting UAVs as a permanent capability is a good thing.  A panacea it is not.  Nor will it be cheap, either in dollars, infrastructure or PYs.


----------



## aesop081

thunderchild said:
			
		

> But that can't be done with only 10 rebuilt CP-140's,



Why not ? Are you going to explain or just keep throwing random ideas around ? Ever been up north on a patrol ?



> -organize patrols into 1 control aircraft ,1 AWACS, 2-4 UAV/UCAV, 2 new MPA



Why an AWACS ?



> -the control aircraft can coordinate with the new Arctic patrol ships and submarines.



You dont have a clue what it takes for an aircraft to comunicate with a submerged submarine do you ?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You dont have a clue what it takes for an aircraft to comunicate with a submerged submarine do you ?



A really long string attached to 2 cans  ;D


----------



## medaid

Message in a bottle?


----------



## thunderchild

VLF (Very Low Frequency)is needed to communicate with submerged submarines very bulky equipment and one very long antenna. The reason that I have said that 10 aircraft is not enough is due to the increased shipping activity requiring more surveillance that would occur in the arctic should it become passable to shipping.  This would be multiplied if there was any major oil development or resource development In mining. The other reason is that any future MPA would also have to contend with increased patrolling of our international limits.  

 Awacs is required due to the fact that both pine tree line and dew line radars are old and require maintenance.  Having our own AWACS to fill these gaps should a radar fail would be wise given the return of Russian bombers flying patrols in the area, there is also the need to establish some kind of traffic control as the number of aircraft operating in the area would most certainly increase. This would also assist in SAR operations when needed.  Before you say it I know that NATO has E-3's with Canadian aircrew aboard, just answer this question any permanently based in Canada?  

 Allotting 4 CP-140's to each coast with allowing for 1 extra airframe already pushes the aurora to it's limit given that the good ones are being taken apart to rebuild them, so you will have to limit air time just to make them last until the new MPA has be made operational, that could take 20 years if you use the Maritime Patrol Helicopter as an example. There is also the option of moving assets as missions require, if you have the airframes.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

thunderchild said:
			
		

> VLF (Very Low Frequency)is needed to communicate with submerged submarines very bulky equipment and one very long antenna. The reason that I have said that 10 aircraft is not enough is due to the increased shipping activity requiring more surveillance that would occur in the arctic should it become passable to shipping.  This would be multiplied if there was any major oil development or resource development In mining. The other reason is that any future MPA would also have to contend with increased patrolling of our international limits.



But....

VLF radio waves (3–30 kHz) can penetrate sea water to a depth of approximately 20 meters. Hence a submarine at shallow depth can use these frequencies. Even a vessel more deeply submerged might use a buoy on a long cable equipped with an antenna. The buoy rises to a few meters below the surface, and may be small enough to remain undetected by enemy sonar / radar.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

HF goes down to ~20 m. VLF goes down a lot farther than that.

However, the lower the frequency the lower the bandwidth. I really doubt you could effectively control a boat at HF, let alone VLF. There's also the matter of getting replies from the boat...they can't transmit at 20 m.

You also need a fairly large amount of equipment to handle VLF.


----------



## aesop081

thunderchild said:
			
		

> there is also the need to establish some kind of traffic control as the number of aircraft operating in the area would most certainly increase.



When did air traffic control become a military problem ? You ever hear of NAV Canada ? Oh wait......increased IFR traffic in the North .......why would there be more than now ? Is Yellowknife becoming a hot tourist destination ? 

Increased IFR traffic......UAVs...........havent we covered this already ?



> Allotting 4 CP-140's to each coast with allowing for 1 extra airframe already pushes the aurora to it's limit given that the good ones are being taken apart to rebuild them, so you will have to limit air time just to make them last until the new MPA has be made operational, that could take 20 years if you use the Maritime Patrol Helicopter as an example. There is also the option of moving assets as missions require, if you have the airframes.



Are you seriously giving me lessons on MPAs ?



			
				thunderchild said:
			
		

> Before you say it I know that NATO has E-3's with Canadian aircrew aboard, just answer this question any permanently based in Canada?



USAF AWACS at Elmendorf AFB in Alaska and Tinker AFB in Oklahoma have Canadians onboard. If anything, i would say that those are more relevant to what we are talking about here.


----------



## TCBF

thunderchild said:
			
		

> ... Awacs is required due to the fact that both pine tree line and dew line radars are old and require maintenance.  ...



- It's not that they're OLD, it's that they're GONE.  Pine Tree has been decommissioned.  DEW has been replaced by the NWS, which uses old and new locations.


----------



## Loachman

thunderchild said:
			
		

> Having our own AWACS



How many?

At what cost?

What about all of the other higher priorities starved for funding?



			
				thunderchild said:
			
		

> as the number of aircraft operating in the area would most certainly increase.



By how much, and why? At what altitudes?



			
				thunderchild said:
			
		

> This would also assist in SAR operations when needed.



How?

Has there been a demonstrated need?



			
				thunderchild said:
			
		

> Before you say it I know that NATO has E-3's with Canadian aircrew aboard, just answer this question any permanently based in Canada?



No. Geilenkirchen, Germany.


----------



## Loachman

thunderchild said:
			
		

> -organize patrols into 1 control aircraft ,1 AWACS, 2-4 UAV/UCAV, 2 new MPA.



Today's UAVs have two-man crews, and sometimes an Int guy. They take up space, and so do their control stations. Each AV requires uplink and downlink antennae, including backups, and these are directional so they are fairly large and would require fairings around each. How big an aeroplane do you want, and how many big knobby things do you want sticking out of it into the slipstream?

Line-of-site control is limited to about eighty to a hundred nautical miles, so you would have these things flying in wide formation on the control aircraft - or trying to, as they tend to be not very fast (built for endurance rather than speed).

As already pointed out, they have to take off from and land at some location with support facilities.

This is all extremely expensive, ineffective, inefficient, and impractical.

Sometimes there are perfectly good reasons for not doing the things that we do not do.


----------



## observor 69

Thanks for the info guys, great discussion from the two last replies.


----------



## thunderchild

OK I understand that anything we do in the Arctic is expensive so somebody give me an  Idea that will work, is inexpensive and practical.

According to the posts that I have been reading this is what I have got
1-satellites no too expensive and the orbital mechanics don't work out
2- ground control no too many stations needed to hard to support and too expensive (I'll include any naval system here as LOS becomes a problem here too)
3- airborne control no too expensive, not efficient and not practical

so what do we do. If the government decides that the arctic is a defence priority the only thing we can say is we can't do it.  Is that not giving up our claim to the area. I never claimed to have the answers. so somebody lets hear a plan that will work because I'm stummed.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I never said North Sovereignty was impossible- just expensive.  

Do not let wishful thinking about the state of technology cloud your judgement, either.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

thunderchild said:
			
		

> OK I understand that anything we do in the Arctic is expensive so somebody give me an  Idea that will work, is inexpensive and practical.
> 
> According to the posts that I have been reading this is what I have got
> 1-satellites no too expensive and the orbital mechanics don't work out
> 2- ground control no too many stations needed to hard to support and too expensive (I'll include any naval system here as LOS becomes a problem here too)
> 3- airborne control no too expensive, not efficient and not practical
> 
> so what do we do. If the government decides that the arctic is a defence priority the only thing we can say is we can't do it.  Is that not giving up our claim to the area. I never claimed to have the answers. so somebody lets hear a plan that will work because I'm stummed.



Why are you just looking at it from an air POV?


----------



## aesop081

thunderchild said:
			
		

> so somebody lets hear a plan that will work because I'm stummed.



I'll get on a plan for you as soon as i stop patroling the coast *AND * the north...........Unlike you, we havent thrown in the towel.


----------



## medaid

Funny, the only thing I don't seem to get is why you appear to have this illusion that you're entitled to something? i.e. Why do 'WE' have to come up with something? 

It just seems odd to me you know? You've been given answers and you've been shot down for many a reason.. I'm curious why you are so worried? Who are you? Why do you have such a vested interest in this?


----------



## KingKikapu

This has been an interesting chat.  I knew that the North was a royal pain in the butt due to technical reasons, but after hearing from the pros, it's even more apparent that there are no easy solutions to this pickle.  The next few decades are going to be interesting if the passage stays open.


----------



## TCBF

KingKikapu said:
			
		

> ...next few decades are going to be interesting if the passage stays open.



- It won't.  As the Russians predicted, we are starting to head into the cooling cycle.


----------



## KingKikapu

TCBF said:
			
		

> - It won't.  As the Russians predicted, we are starting to head into the cooling cycle.



You don't know that, nor do the Russians in any definitive sense.  I've seen first hand how complicated, yet at the same time quick and dirty, the radiation transfer code the climate scientists use really is.  Don't even get me started on their cloud models and convection criteria.  From what I've seen in various upper-level physical science courses, there's lots of good evidence for climate change.  Note I didn't write global warming or cooling.  That said, predictions using the climate models have proven to be a rather hit and miss endeavor.  Sometimes I think our stellar interior models are much more accurate than anything we've done for Earth.  Mind you, the sun is easier to understand than a system as complicated and dynamic as Earth's atmosphere. Anyways, the next few decades will be interesting.  I'm not totally sure what's going to happen.  Jury's still out on that one.


----------



## thunderchild

I was an officer cadet until I was released due to a car accident.  I am not throwing in the towel but I am concerned that as usual too much is being asked but the government is not doing it's bit and leaving the military to clean up the mess.  After all this is our territory and it is going to be a very important part to the world, I want to make sure as you do that it stays ours.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Who's going to take the Arctic? Our problems are bad, but everyone else's dwarf ours.


----------



## Loachman

Precisely. Nobody has ever invaded anybody else's Arctic areas, for good and obvious reasons.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

We can make dog sleds into mortar carriers, it will be our secret weapon!!


----------



## McG

thunderchild said:
			
		

> ... so what do we do.


We can continue what we've been doing.  It is also conceivable that UAVs which are being bought could replace some crewed aircraft flights in more hospitable environments (obviously dependant on the requirements of any given mission and the capabilities of whichever UAV we get).


----------



## thunderchild

to replace the CP-140 we are most likely to buy the U.S. P-8. (I'm assuming the nimrod upgrade will not be available due to the technical problems and added cost over runs the RAF is having.) Given the projected capabilities of the aircraft how many will we need to patrol all 3 coasts with shipping lasting all year long? (asume no uav's for MPA missions)


----------



## aesop081

thunderchild said:
			
		

> to replace the CP-140 we are most likely to buy the U.S. P-8.



How do you figure ? Do you know how much of those things is going to cost ?

I have a vested interest in what replaces the CP-140 but i'm not as optimistic as you are that the P-8 will replace it.



			
				thunderchild said:
			
		

> how many will we need to patrol all 3 coasts with shipping lasting all year long? (asume no uav's for MPA missions)



Theres alot more to the MPA mission that patrolling the 3 coasts for shipping. Seems that you are unable to grasp that concept.


----------



## Zoomie

CP-140 will not be replaced this decade or the next.

New wings under ASLEP means at least 2025 until the government even has to start thinking about that airframe again.  By the then the P-8 will be in its 5 generation and be old news - perfect aircraft for the CF!


----------



## thunderchild

I know there is much more to what you do, and any replacement is going to be expensive.  I used the P-8 for the following reasons
1. support would be easier as the aircraft is a 737-800 so the cost and availability of spares would be easier on the budget.
2. The aircraft will be operated buy the U.S. so inter operations and training should be easier.
3. The range of the aircraft is better than the smaller platforms like the P-99 so loiter times are better.
4.  Weapons are NATO compliant.
5. I can't speak on Electronics and any help here would be appreciated.
6. The aircraft is a complete new build not a 90% new aircraft as with the new Nimrod. (this could restrict the number of aircraft available)
7. The Nimrod is having big troubles budgetary and technically.
8. Edas is not going to build a 319/320 based system unless India Buys it first.
9. The P-8 will likely reach production first.
If you can add or correct anything here let me know but I think I have it right.


----------



## aesop081

This isnt a P-8 thread. We already have those. But for a start, some of your assumptions are inaccurate or just plain incorrect.


----------



## navig8ur

Could not agree more with Zoomie WRT new wings/tails.

Double edge sword in that we have have been given a new lease on life with current fleet; however, with the current Dept fin pressures it means we will fly this fleet for some time and CMA is probable DIW.

Frankly, far better to have an aircraft we know how to operate as opposed to be an early adopter of both a new frame and mission kit.


----------



## aesop081

Valley Denizen said:
			
		

> Frankly, far better to have an aircraft we know how to operate as opposed to be an early adopter of both a new frame and mission kit.



I disagree. Block III will be a substantial change to the way we do buisness and introduces systems for which we have little corporate knowledge. New wings or not, the aircraft has other issues that are not related and i still maintain that " no matter what you do to a 1960 chevy, its still a 1960 Chevy". We still face a huge training bill with the new systems and IMHO, a switch to a brand new aircraft would not have been much more difficult to implement.

Recent experience with block II upgrades tell me that the entire block III and ASLEP process will be painfull, the conversion training will be slow and the proficiency of crews during the process will fall to what *I * consider unacceptable levels.

Comit to a replacement aircraft and be done with it. Stop work on the CP-140 past block II and ASLEP.


----------



## Zoomie

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Block III will be a substantial change to the way we do buisness and introduces systems for which we have little corporate knowledge.



The newly released automation report covers these issues and are being addressed by the syllabus at the FTS.  The current gen of front-end crew may have issues, but the new crews coming on line will be well versed and capable of the AUP fleet.


----------



## aesop081

Zoomie said:
			
		

> The newly released automation report covers these issues and are being addressed by the syllabus at the FTS.  The current gen of front-end crew may have issues, but the new crews coming on line will be well versed and capable of the AUP fleet.



Block III will have a huge impact in the tactical compartment. This is what i was alluding to. For the front end, most of the transition will already have been done during block II. The jump between the legacy tactical systems and the block III systems will be huge and some people will not be able to make the transition.


----------



## navig8ur

Somewhat of an academic discussion regarding the issue of new wings/tails vice a new airframe given a contract signed recently between the crown and LM for 10 sets.

The CP 140 was a big leap from the Argus and we did not jump right into utilizing the new kit to it's full capability right away since the inexperience of the crews did not allow for full exploitation.  It was an interesting time since we really had a significant generational gap in the aircrew which made for many eventful flights.


----------



## MarkOttawa

The MND seems to think the Herons in Afstan have also won the JUSTAS project:

Poor Peter II: Boy is he confused 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/poor-peter-ii-boy-is-he-confused.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

A _Torch_ post:

Armed UAVs in CF's future not hot, scary news 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/armed-uavs-in-cfs-future-not-hot-scary.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy

....(second item) - JUSTAS delayed (is JUSTAS denied? - sorry, couldn't help myself)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/85988/post-843052.html#msg843052

".... The JUSTAS programme is predicated on a partnership with industry. Our aim with industry interaction is to collectively share and receive relevant information in support of this partnership. To maximize the value of these interactions, *the JUSTAS Industry Day scheduled for May 26, 2009 is hereby deferred until key project parameters are available for release to industry* ...."


----------



## dimsum

Just to update an old post, but some folks from the Project Management Office and A3 UAV shop came by to talk to a few of us about the JUSTAS project last week.  They are looking at a base survey starting in Dec and hopefully completed by Christmas.  No word on the locations they are looking at, but one of the guys in the UAV course suggested Mirabel airport, to which one of the PMO staff said "...we've never looked at that."  

He went on to explain his argument for Mirabel.  While weather and proximity to ranges were big factors in places such as Cold Lake and Goose Bay, some of the requirements for the JUSTAS UAV that were mentioned would make it a moot point.  Mirabel also has proximity to Ottawa so the brass could sit in and watch, and access to 4 different ranges to work with other units (Pet, Gagetown, Valcartier and Bagotville.)  Plus, the human factors benefits of living in a city vice Cold Lake would mean jobs for spouses, schools and social life for families or single members, and no requirement for screening for semi or isolated postings.  If, say, there's an EX going on in Wainwright or a maritime patrol in Comox, the whole idea of a satellite-based UAV system would mean that a small team could deploy with the UAV to the site, launch it, turn over control to the sqn in Mirabel, and later take control of it for landing.  

Now I'll just speak for myself here, but given the choice of Mirabel or Cold Lake/Goose Bay/wherever...well I'd rather be practicing my French and living in Montreal.  That alone could make UAVs a highly-sought-after posting for the ACSOs that will eventually man it.  

Discuss.


----------



## George Wallace

Haven't you heard?  The Bloc plans on pulling Quebec out of Confederation in the next Election.     >


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Dimsum,

Are you saying that, in effect, Transport Canada is about to agree that UAVs can operate in Cdn airspace other than Class F?

That would be an interesting (if overdue) development.


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Dimsum,
> 
> Are you saying that, in effect, Transport Canada is about to agree that UAVs can operate in Cdn airspace other than Class F?
> 
> That would be an interesting (if overdue) development.



At the moment, no.  However, some of the other reqs A3 mentioned (IFR capability, etc) are also not possible/allowed at the moment.  If we plan on using this system for surveillance, one would hope we wouldn't need to create Class F every time we go on a patrol.  Or, as the whole thing is relatively portable, we could send an airframe, a launch station and a few people via rail or road...like the Heron system now.


----------



## Zoomie

The plan that is in the works is that a new trade would be created from which the initial cadre will be pulled from the ACSO trade.  These AVO's would undergo some sort of basic flight training and receive an IFR ticket - this would essentially allow them to "fly" these machines in all airspaces across Canada.

I have heard differing plans that are changing on a monthly basis - this is the latest that I heard from the Div just last week.

Apparently some sort of half-wing would also be created for the AVO's.


----------



## dimsum

About the Class F requirement, does the FAA allow US UAVs to fly in non-military airspace?  I wonder how it'd work with Predators patrolling the Canadian border.  There are countries (ie. Israel) where UAVs operate with other aircraft in the same airspace with no special rules as far as I know.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> The plan that is in the works is that a new trade would be created from which the initial cadre will be pulled from the ACSO trade.  These AVO's would undergo some sort of basic flight training and receive an IFR ticket - this would essentially allow them to "fly" these machines in all airspaces across Canada.
> 
> I have heard differing plans that are changing on a monthly basis - this is the latest that I heard from the Div just last week.
> 
> Apparently some sort of half-wing would also be created for the AVO's.



That's news to me and a few people who really should know if something like that was actually going to happen.

Straight from the ACSO Career Manager today- ACSOs are doing AVO.  It is not a sub-occupation or a separate occupation.


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That's news to me and a few people who really should know if something like that was actually going to happen.
> 
> Straight from the ACSO Career Manager today- ACSOs are doing AVO.  It is not a sub-occupation or a separate occupation.



Anything else new from the CM brief regarding this? He had mentioned that before but said that he'd have more info around this timeframe.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Nothing shocking, other than NATO may be setting up a UAV Sqn which may have some Cdn participation.  No time lines or firm numbers.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Post at _The Torch_:

Project JUSTAS: Long-term UAV acquisition still moving right 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/project-justas-long-term-uav.html



> A shortage of personnel, and likely funds, for the MALE (medium-altitude long-endurance) UAV system. First delivery slipppig two years to 2014, fully operational in 2017--the possible slippage had in fact already been reported in November 2008...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=24544016

A senior Canadian air commander says the military is at least five years away from acquiring armed drones. 

Maj.-Gen. Yvan Blondin, the commander of 1 Canadian Air Division, says he believes it's likely to take that long before Canada acquires the unmanned aerial vehicles. 

Blondin was making a rare visit to Kandahar Airfield, where he was briefed on Canada's air operations in southern Afghanistan. 

In addition to Chinook and Griffon helicopters, Canada currently operates unarmed drones in Kandahar province to conduct reconnaissance for NATO forces. 

The vehicles, which are flown by controllers on the ground, help the coalition keep watch over roads where Taliban fighters are believed to be planting roadside bombs or plan ambushes. 

Canada's air wing at Kandahar Airfield became fully operational a year ago.


----------



## 392

Correct me if I am wrong, but does the Heron not have the capability to carry munitions?


----------



## aesop081

Capt. Happy said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong, but does the Heron not have the capability to carry munitions?



No.


----------



## dimsum

Capt. Happy said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong, but does the Heron not have the capability to carry munitions?



Not ours.  There was talk about the Israeli version with the option.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Most recent necro-thread I could find to share the latest corporate hopes re:  JUSTAS:


> General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA‑ASI), a leading manufacturer of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), tactical reconnaissance radars, and surveillance systems, and CAE today announced that the companies have signed an exclusive teaming agreement to offer the Predator® B UAS to meet Canada’s Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) needs.
> 
> “GA-ASI’s establishment of a formal partnership with CAE signifies a firm commitment by both companies to help Canada strengthen its security and sovereignty both at home and abroad,” said Frank Pace, president, Aircraft Systems Group, GA-ASI.  “CAE’s expertise in the operation and maintenance of large fleets of manned aircraft, modelling and simulation technologies, and in-service support solutions is well matched by GA-ASI’s proficiency in the design, development, production, and operational support of proven, affordable, and responsive unmanned aircraft systems with integrated reconnaissance payloads.”
> 
> Under the program presently referred to as the JUSTAS program, the Canadian Government will establish a requirement to field and support interoperable, network-enabled UASs to provide ISTAR and all-weather precision-strike capabilities in support of its operations worldwide.  GA-ASI and CAE will jointly compete for this program, with GA-ASI serving as the prime contractor supporting a U.S. Foreign Military Sale (FMS) procurement.  The teaming arrangement between GA-ASI and CAE is designed to offer the best combination of experience and proven capability to meet program and Canadian-specific requirements while reducing technical, cost, and schedule risks.
> 
> As the first-tier Canadian subcontractor, CAE would have overall responsibility for a comprehensive In-Service Support (ISS) solution, including operator and mission training systems; integration with Canada’s existing Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) infrastructure; systems engineering support; and lifecycle and integrated logistics support services.  CAE would also have responsibility for assembling a pan-Canadian team of companies to develop and support any Canadian-specific requirements and content for Canada’s national ISTAR capabilities ....


More in the news release here.

More on UAVs:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/67417.0.html
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/85988/post-845081.html#msg845081
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/60171.0.html


----------



## dimsum

Pred-B (Reaper) makes sense with interoperability with the Americans and others who are flying them.  It should be interesting to see what (if anything) comes out of this, especially since the USAF just started a formal training program for non-prior-qualified pilots to become UAV operators.


----------



## GAP

General Atomics, CAE partner for Canada UAV contest
By Zach Rosenberg DATE:25/05/11 SOURCE:Flight International
Article Link

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc (GA-ASI) and simulator manufacturer CAE have announced a partnership to enter Canada's joint unmanned surveillance target acquisition system (JUSTAS) competition.

Under the terms of the deal, announced 25 May, GA-ASI will provide Predator B vehicles and ground control stations, while CAE will provide training consoles, systems integration and logistics support. Any prospective sale would be contingent upon winning a competition and subject to standard foreign military sales (FMS) protocol. Possible competitors in the medium altitude long endurance (MALE) category include the Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) Heron TP, EADS Talarion and BAE Systems Mantis.

Canada's JUSTAS program has been crawling at a snail's pace since its formal launch in 1999, with initial operational capability originally expected in 2009; an RFP is now expected in 2012, with a construction contract awarded in 2013 and initial operational capability in 2015.

In a 2008 the Canadian army leased IAI Heron drones to support forces deployed to Afghanistan. The Heron lease was renewed in 2010, but will expire with the imminent withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan. GA-ASI declined to bid for the 2008 lease deal, citing concerns about heavy penalties in the contract terms for late aircraft deliveries.
end


----------



## dimsum

To clarify, Project NOCTUA is done when the Heron lease ends, which will end when we cease combat operations.  The JUSTAS project is what GA-ASI and CAE are teaming up to pitch to us.


----------



## aesop081

GAP said:
			
		

> In a 2008 the Canadian army leased IAI Heron drones to support forces deployed to Afghanistan.



The Canadian army did no such thing.


----------



## The Bread Guy

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The Canadian army did no such thing.


There you go obsessing about facts again.  What kind of reporter would you make?


----------



## Drag

The JUSTAS project is on hiatus until a number of issues are sorted out, the biggest one of which being the PY requirement.  The VCDS allocated 150PYs for this capability, the Air Force wants over 300....  Hence we won't see a MALE UAV operational for a long time to come.


----------



## dimsum

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/14/john-ivison-ottawa-sets-sights-on-armed-drones/

2 Points:  

1.  Doesn't 6 seem a little...low?
2.  Why do journalists seem to think that at this point, a UAV is equal to a manned fighter?  It's like comparing apples to hammers.  A UAV in any air-defense threat environment (or against a manned fighter) will mean...well, one less UAV.


----------



## George Wallace

Love the use of the word "Drone".  A Drone has its flight programed into it and it flies that program.  It has no ground controller to constantly monitor and fly its flight.  An "armed drone" would then be completely useless as it would only be able to effectively attack known fixed targets.  Predator is not a Drone.  It has a 'pilot' on the ground flying it.

Oh well!  The media also calls AVGPs, LAVs, Coyotes, etc. "Tanks".  No wonder the public can't have an informed knowledge of what the CF is all about.


----------



## Haletown

Great story . .  pure comedy gold.

Is someone in the PMO playing Ivison just for fun?


----------



## jeffb

Dimsum said:
			
		

> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/14/john-ivison-ottawa-sets-sights-on-armed-drones/
> 
> 2 Points:
> 
> 1.  Doesn't 6 seem a little...low?
> 2.  Why do journalists seem to think that at this point, a UAV is equal to a manned fighter?  It's like comparing apples to hammers.  A UAV in any air-defense threat environment (or against a manned fighter) will mean...well, one less UAV.



I don't think 6 is insanely low. If you are looking at providing ISR coverage over an battle group's AO, 6 would do the job nicely. The big difference between Reaper (AKA, Predator C) and a fixed wing program from a ISR user perspective is the loiter time. Reaper is not just a strike capability, it is a surveillance capability as well. The ability to provide real time sense/strike capability with a slow enough airspeed that even guys walking around can be tracked, is apples to oranges with fixed wing, manned aviation. Not to undercut fixed wing, manned aircraft. They are important too and without them gaining airspace supremacy, the Reaper is an expensive lawn dart. 

I can buy the need for the F-35 program but it will not be doing the job of the Reaper unless we find ourselves in a conflict with someone who has a strong armour threat and who's AD has been completely suppressed.


----------



## Edward Campbell

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Love the use of the word "Drone".  A Drone has its flight programed into it and it flies that program.  It has no ground controller to constantly monitor and fly its flight.  An "armed drone" would then be completely useless as it would only be able to effectively attack known fixed targets.  Predator is not a Drone.  It has a 'pilot' on the ground flying it.
> 
> Oh well!  The media also calls AVGPs, LAVs, Coyotes, etc. "Tanks".  No wonder the public can't have an informed knowledge of what the CF is all about.




Civilians, even fairly well informed civilians, do not need to understand, much less pay attention to the finer linguistic distinctions - "drone" is a common usage general term for different types of UAVs, just as "tank" is a common general term for many armoured vehicles. The public can understand, very well, what the CF is "all about" even if they don't get the terminology exactly right. Within the CF different groups use terms that are misunderstood by other CF members, civilians cannot and should not be expected to understand "our" language.


----------



## Haletown

things like aviation are difficult for  Ottawa bound journalists . . they probably have to rely on "sources" for their info.

It means you get stuff like this.

"The problem for the Tories is that the cost of the planes is likely to rise considerably from the estimated $75-million per plane. Buying 65 jets would burst the $9-billion budget allocated for the F-35 purchase.

The U.S. Defence Department estimates the cost of each F-35 at $195-million this year. The Pentagon said Monday it intends to reduce spending on the F-35s next year and delay future spending because of the soaring costs and technological problems."

The first sentence is  conjecture and contains an error in the price  . . $65m is still the current URF -   and this sentences finishes with more speculation presented as fact  - he has no knowledge of the size of any price rise and if it would "burst" any budget   . . .  if he doesn't know how big any speculated price increase will be and he doesn't know the size and uses of the Program's Contingency Fund, he's just writing words to fill white space.

 It is to be noted  that he doesn't speculate on any price reductions that will accrue to the JSF program based on increased foreign sales - look up the Japanese purchase John.

Third sentence - don't have a clue where he got $195m price per jet in the current LRIP batch.  Maybe he called Steve Staples a noted Ottawa aviation and Peace at any Price expert.

Admiral Venlet the head of the F-35 Program Office released these figures in Dec 2011

"The unit cost targets according to the government program office are:

* $111.6 million for the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing version;

* $109.4 million for the short-takeoff-and-landing version; and * $142.9 million for the first production carrier aircraft."


And the last sentence - the deferred deliveries have nothing to do with technical issues  or cost pressures - the reason is the concurrency problem that the level of testing has pointed out. They want  fewer aircraft in the orphan fleet that  will need re-fits to correct issues found in testing.


----------



## McG

Is this part of JUSTAS?


----------



## WingsofFury

Haletown said:
			
		

> Third sentence - don't have a clue where he got $195m price per jet in the current LRIP batch.  Maybe he called Steve Staples a noted Ottawa aviation and Peace at any Price expert.
> 
> Admiral Venlet the head of the F-35 Program Office released these figures in Dec 2011
> 
> "The unit cost targets according to the government program office are:
> 
> * $111.6 million for the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing version;
> 
> * $109.4 million for the short-takeoff-and-landing version; and * $142.9 million for the first production carrier aircraft."



For what it's worth, I believe he's talking about 2013 costs as attributed to slower production.

F-35A: $176,488,368 each (3,353,279,000/19) 
F-35B: $253,661,000 each (1,521,966,000/6) 
F-35C: $279,174,500 each (1,116,698,000/4) 

Source:  http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/fy2013_p1.pdf  Page 146

Although the number is high, the cost while not in full production is still lower than the per unit price of a Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 3 aircraft based on Germany's acquisition which puts the Typhoon at about 190M Euros a copy.


----------



## Haletown

WingsofFury said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, I believe he's talking about 2013 costs as attributed to slower production.
> 
> F-35A: $176,488,368 each (3,353,279,000/19)
> F-35B: $253,661,000 each (1,521,966,000/6)
> F-35C: $279,174,500 each (1,116,698,000/4)
> 
> Source:  http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/fy2013_p1.pdf  Page 146



It looks like this report is the POTUS budget submission and is for Program costs, all in. 

Venlet is using  the actual aircraft/URF price

could you point out where in the report these figures are  . . .  page # . .  thnx ++


----------



## dimsum

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Love the use of the word "Drone".  A Drone has its flight programed into it and it flies that program.  It has no ground controller to constantly monitor and fly its flight.  An "armed drone" would then be completely useless as it would only be able to effectively attack known fixed targets.  Predator is not a Drone.  It has a 'pilot' on the ground flying it.



Totally agree.  I've gotten so sick and tired of correcting people on that term that I gave up and just said "yeah, sure.  Drones."  The only thing that I'll add is it's not a "pilot" flying a Pred/Reaper; they are actual qualified (used to be Fighter, now any winged) pilots in the seat.


----------



## Kirkhill

MCG said:
			
		

> Is this part of JUSTAS?



General Atomics and CAE  probably just swagged the requirement for Ivison's Drones way back in May of last year......



> San Diego, USA and *Montreal, Canada,  May 25, 2011 *  – General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI), a leading manufacturer of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), tactical reconnaissance radars, and surveillance systems, and CAE today announced that the companies have signed an exclusive teaming agreement to offer the Predator® B UAS to meet Canada’s Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) needs.
> .....
> Under the program presently referred to as the *JUSTAS* program, *the Canadian Government will establish a requirement* to field and support interoperable, network-enabled UASs *to provide ISTAR and all-weather precision-strike capabilities *  in support of its operations worldwide. ...


----------



## GAP

Ottawa considers high-altitude drones for Arctic surveillance
By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press 05/30/2012
Article Link

OTTAWA - The Harper government is considering a proposal to buy at least three high-altitude, unmanned aerial vehicles in what could be an attempt to salvage its Arctic sovereignty ambitions.

The pitch was made by U.S. defence contractor Northrop Grumman and involves modifying its existing Global Hawk drone, which can operate at 20,000 metres, to meet the rigours of flying in the Far North.

Many of the Conservative government's plans to establish a presence in the rapidly thawing region, including the construction of military icebreakers and the establishment of a deepwater port, are behind schedule.

The U.S. air force is considering selling some of its Global Hawks, which are still under construction, as part of military budget cuts.

"It's a capability that matches a need here in Canada," Dane Marlot, Northrop Grumman's director of international business development.

"The Arctic is an issue for Canada. It's also an issue for the United States. Unless you know what's going on there, you can't take any action."

He says any potential purchase would have to go through the Pentagon, but adds the proposal given to the Canadian government includes aircraft, ground stations, spares and in-service support.

Marlot declined to attach a price tag, but a source with knowledge of the file said the package could run between $150 million and $170 million for each drone, depending upon what kind of surveillance package the Royal Canadian Air Force wants.

The discussions are far enough long that the air force has made it clear that it would like to see servicing of the aircraft done by the military, as opposed to civilian contractors.

Bases have even been suggested, including Goose Bay, N.L., Montreal — or Comox, B.C.

Government insiders say Northrop Grumman has been very determined in its pitch, but no decision has been made.

The remote-controlled aircraft is capable of staying airborne for up to 35 hours, traversing the entire country and providing near real-time video to a ground station.

The Global Hawks differ from the more notorious MQ-1 Predators in that they are not armed and are used only for surveillance.

The air force wants more drones, but the program to acquire them has — like other military procurements— been sidelined.

Military planners have been on the verge of defining how unmanned aircraft fit into the country's defence strategy for the last couple of years, but scarce funds and rapidly changing technology has made it a frustrating endeavour.

How a purchase of three, or possibly up to five Global Hawks, would square with that long-standing program is unclear.

There is skepticism within National Defence, mostly because of the Global Hawk's enormous price tag. Even the country's top military commander, Gen. Walt Natynczyk, has publicly expressed doubts.

But politics may trump policy.
More on link


----------



## a_majoor

The story has surfaced again in the NP. Buying the drones is certainly better than doing nothing, but perhaps other alternatives should be considered as well?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/09/matt-gurney-when-rhetoric-fails-drones-could-help-canada-control-the-arctic/



> *Matt Gurney: When rhetoric fails, drones could help Canada control the Arctic*
> Matt Gurney  Jul 9, 2012 – 3:42 PM ET | Last Updated: Jul 9, 2012 3:47 PM ET
> 
> Reed Saxon/CP
> The Global Hawk drone is unveiled at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., Thursday, Jan. 15, 2009. The Harper government is considering a proposal to buy at least three high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles in what could be attempt to salvage its Arctic sovereignty ambitions.
> 
> Over the last several months, Northrop Grumman, a U.S.-based defence and aeronautics company, has been lobbying Canadian officials with an innovative proposal for safeguarding the sovereignty of our Arctic territory and the security of our northern coastal approaches. Northrop Grumman proposes to sell Canada modified Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicles — drones — which would provide Canada with constant real-time monitoring capability over a huge swath of our territory that is currently only patrolled by any occasional flypast by an Air Force plane or by Canadian Rangers on snow mobiles.
> 
> The modified drones, dubbed Polar Hawks by the company, would be able to stay in the air for up to 30 hours at a time. They would be equipped with a variety of cameras and electronic sensors. Canadian military personnel would operate them remotely from anywhere in the country, staying in touch with the drones via satellite.
> 
> There would be technical and practical hurdles to overcome, including the difficulties in communicating with any vehicle, manned or otherwise, at extreme northern latitudes, and the Canadian military’s relative inexperience operating drones. The drones
> Canada operated during the war in Afghanistan were much smaller machines, working in far less hostile environments, than what Northrop Grumman is envisioning. And cost would also be an issue — it could potentially run as high as $1.6-billion, a sum made all the more daunting by austerity-driven cutbacks already planned for Canada’s defence budget.
> 
> These are real concerns. But the plan has merit. The Conservative government has long talked up the importance of projecting Canadian authority into our far northern regions, but other than an annual military exercise, little has actually been done. The long-awaited Arctic patrol warships the Navy has been promised are still nowhere near completion, plans for new icebreakers are likewise going nowhere and a plan for a major military facility in Nunavat was reduced to a part-time facility made up of trailers, to be used only “as needed.” The Armed Forces simply don’t have the money to match the government’s lofty rhetoric. But if Canada is to be a credible Arctic power, it needs something to demonstrate its determination to assert control over its own territory.
> 
> The first step in controlling one’s own territory is knowing who is coming and going throughout it. Polar Hawk drones may not be cheap, but they are a realistic way for Canada to be aware of what’s happening in its very own distant backyard. If the government wishes to remain credible on issues of Arctic sovereignty, procuring drones or some other means of monitoring the far north is a necessary first step.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Hmmm....line of sight to a drone at 20 km altitude is ~600 km. Can those drones get reliable satellite coverage that high up?


----------



## Occam

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Hmmm....line of sight to a drone at 20 km altitude is ~600 km. Can those drones get reliable satellite coverage that high up?



I think your geometry is a little off.  The higher a drone flies, the more likely it is going to be within the footprint of a geostationary satellite.  It's when they drop down low that they lose coverage at the poles.


----------



## McG

Occam said:
			
		

> I think your geometry is a little off.  The higher a drone flies, the more likely it is going to be within the footprint of a geostationary satellite.  It's when they drop down low that they lose coverage at the poles.


I suspect the intent was to inquire if there is satellite coverage that far north ... given that a geostationary satellite would be sitting somewhere above the equator.


----------



## cupper

MCG said:
			
		

> I suspect the intent was to inquire if there is satellite coverage that far north ... given that a geostationary satellite would be sitting somewhere above the equator.



Could use a high latitude Tundra orbit similar to Russian communications satellites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tundra_orbit


----------



## GAP

Cost of a satelite somewhere in the vicinity of 60-100 M.....the cost of the UAV's are insignificant ......


----------



## jeffb

GAP said:
			
		

> Cost of a satelite somewhere in the vicinity of 60-100 M.....the cost of the UAV's are insignificant ......



If your numbers are accurate, and the article is accurate "...And cost would also be an issue — it could potentially run as high as $1.6-billion..." then it would seem that satellites are the less expensive option. However, the great source of Wikipedia says the fly away cost is only $100 million for the Global Hawk. The USAF procurement documents http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100128-072.pdf see pg. 4-103 (pg 271 in the pdf) shows the total cost of the entire program at around 1.1 billion and that is to acquire 61 airframes. These obviously don't track what Wikipedia is citing.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Satellites are a big issue.  A geosynchronous satellite is not much good above 70N- IIRC.

So, we could piggy back on US satellites (with all of the sovereignity and security issues that would create, if we were doing something up north they did not agree with).

We could launch our own polar orbit constellation.  We would need 3, plus a spare to maintain a constant comms link (again, IIRC).  That would run at least $ 1 billion, alone.

There is no easy way or cheap way to do this.


----------



## Zoomie

At 80N the satellite dish points parallel to the ground to communicate with the geostationary comm satellites over the equator. Same goes for Bell Xpress View TV. This is the furthest north that you can have dedicated satellite uplink capabilities with ground based assets. Hence the raison d'être for CFS Eureka.  With that in mind and taking into account better range at altitude, you could have a pretty good coverage area for unmanned aerial vehicles. Especially since the northwest passage is much further to the south than 80N.


----------



## Occam

MCG said:
			
		

> I suspect the intent was to inquire if there is satellite coverage that far north ... given that a geostationary satellite would be sitting somewhere above the equator.



That's why I said his geometry was off.  He was mentioning a figure for an airborne platform to the horizon, which is pointless when you're talking about an aircraft at 20 km altitude trying to talk to a satellite which is at 35,786 km altitude.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Satellites are a big issue.  A geosynchronous satellite is not much good above 70N- IIRC.
> 
> So, we could piggy back on US satellites (with all of the sovereignity and security issues that would create, if we were doing something up north they did not agree with).
> 
> We could launch our own polar orbit constellation.  We would need 3, plus a spare to maintain a constant comms link (again, IIRC).  That would run at least $ 1 billion, alone.



You can do it with two satellites (we're only interested in coverage over the Arctic)...and I believe you'll find that industry is already way ahead of us on this one, and wanting to know if we want in on it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Thank-you Zoomie and Occam for coming in with clarification.

My point is: with UAVs, a lot of people underestimate the comms requirements and the control segment.

Neither are insignificant problems.


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Thank-you Zoomie and Occam for coming in with clarification.
> 
> My point is: with UAVs, a lot of people underestimate the comms requirements and the control segment.
> 
> Neither are insignificant problems.



Another factor that sometimes gets missed is the amount of personnel involved.  I've noticed that the USAF, RAAF and RAF have started referring to them as RPAs (Remotely Piloted Aircraft) instead of UAVs, partially to remind folks that there are aviators controlling it, and partially to highlight the fact that there is a significant human footprint involved in operating the aircraft.

*Disclaimer:  Total WAG in terms of numbers ahead.  Don't crucify me if I'm off in terms of how many people are in a maintenance crew*

I would suggest that an RPA squadron would require just as many people (if not more) than most squadrons.  With an endurance of, say 24 hours, they would need a min of 2 crews.  Also, let's assume that the squadron will have its own Int processing capability (as we did in KAF with Heron) and that maintenance would be in-house (not contracted.)  

Each RPA crew would be roughly 5 people, consisting of a Pilot, Sensor Operator, and 2-3 Int folks (again, based on Heron.)  So a min of 10 people would be involved for one 24-hour sortie to handle crew duty issues.  For continuous ops, there would likely be 2 aircraft (one to relieve the other) so 20 people "flying" at one time at a bare minimum.  Given how big Canada is, it wouldn't be unrealistic to expect 2-3 flying at a given time (one per coast and one up north), requiring 4-6 RPAs in the air at certain times.  

Add to that the amount of people required to keep something like a Global Hawk (not a small airplane) running on the maintenance side, knowing that it is definitely a 24-hour operation.  So, factor in 3 crews for maintenance.  

Comms will be a huge issue, since the RPA is essentially useless without it.  So, probably an entire crew or 3 of comm techs (of various specialties.)  In addition, Admin, Execs, etc. would have to be factored in, like any other squadron.  

With so many people doing shift work, extra people will be needed to relieve crews as necessary for courses, leave, etc.  Maybe 25% more people to handle that....?

So, to summarize my total WAG, a 3-sortie RPA continuous operation (1 east coast, 1 west coast, 1 Arctic) would require about 120 people tied up in the aircrew alone, with a possible reduction in the amount of Int folks (but not by much, considering how busy they were in CHUD.)  Again a total WAG, but with a 15-person maintenance crew (?) that would mean 45 maintainers, bringing the total to 165.  Perhaps a bunch of comms folks would make it about 180-190 people.  With the others listed, this could quickly creep up, to the point that a squadron of 200+ or even 300 wouldn't be too far off the mark, using those figures and adding missions; imagine adding lines of tasking to support deployments and other operations.

Again, these numbers are total guesses based partially on what we used with Heron, and what may be required to keep 6 RPAs in the air at all times.  To put it all into perspective, the USAF has a current target of 60+ continuous sorties over Afghanistan, and because of this can't generate crews fast enough.  From the article (link below), it says that "About 168 people are needed to keep a single Predator aloft for 24 hours, according to the Air Force. The larger Global Hawk surveillance drone requires 300 people. In contrast, an F-16 fighter aircraft needs fewer than 100 people per mission."  

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/29/world/la-fg-drones-civilians-20111230  

To reiterate, before people pile on about how many people are required to operate a "drone", my point is that it doesn't take less people to operate an RPA squadron vice a manned one; if anything, it would probably require more.  They just happen to be on the ground.


----------



## George Wallace

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I would suggest that an RPA squadron would require just as many people (if not more) than most squadrons.  With an endurance of, say 24 hours, they would need a min of 2 crews.  Also, let's assume that the squadron will have its own Int processing capability (as we did in KAF with Heron) and that maintenance would be in-house (not contracted.)
> 
> Each RPA crew would be roughly 5 people, consisting of a Pilot, Sensor Operator, and 2-3 Int folks (again, based on Heron.)  So a min of 10 people would be involved for one 24-hour sortie to handle crew duty issues.  For continuous ops, there would likely be 2 aircraft (one to relieve the other) so 20 people "flying" at one time at a bare minimum.  Given how big Canada is, it wouldn't be unrealistic to expect 2-3 flying at a given time (one per coast and one up north), requiring 4-6 RPAs in the air at certain times.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> To reiterate, before people pile on about how many people are required to operate a "drone", my point is that it doesn't take less people to operate an RPA squadron vice a manned one; if anything, it would probably require more.  They just happen to be on the ground.



I would think that you are correct, in that we would need a fair number of people to operate these "Sqns", but I think that the numbers could be cut back from your estimate a bit with some efficient planning.  For instance you think/estimate that there would be four shifts required to fly two aircraft on one patrol area.  I would say that with some planning that could be cut to three, with an over lap of two shifts during the launch/recovery stage of the RPVs.  While one shift is launching a RPV and moving on Station, the other is landing a RPV.  Once that stage of the handover is done, there is only the need for another shift to fly on Station.  Only during the handover stage of a patrol would you have two shifts on overlapping schedules.  Other than that, you would have one shift on and two off.  No need for a fourth.

I am sure that if you look at it, you would also be able to cut back on your other operators, analysts, maintainers, etc.  They would all be working with multiple aircraft, not dedicate solely to one airframe.

Could one operating base, centrally located, also factor in on the reduction of personnel?  Why not?  Afghanistan is an example.  Most of the operators were in the US.  Only the pers necessary to control the aircraft for the launch and recovery of the shorter range RPVs were in Afghanistan.   Global Hawk, if I am correct, was launched well outside of Afghanistan.  Once in the air, the control was passed to operators in the US.  Here, at home, with no threat, an airfield centrally located, could easily house all the pers necessary to fly these RPVs and monitor all of Canada's areas of responsibility and interest.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

More in the Gobe today:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/article4398883.ece



> A high-flying, long-endurance pilotless drone – dubbed the Polar Hawk – might fill Canada’s gaping hole in its ability to monitor what’s going on in the Arctic.
> 
> With a rapidly receding summer ice cap igniting a new rush to find, stake and exploit Arctic resources, and with ship traffic projected to rise dramatically through the Northwest Passage, there’s new urgency to concerns about the surveillance gap.
> 
> Currently Canada’s military presence in the Arctic consists of an occasional patrol by one of Canada’s aging Aurora aircraft and brief deployments of a pair of CF-18 warplanes to Inuvik. And none of Canada’s warships or submarines can operate in or under the ice.
> 
> That deficiency in Canada’s ability to maintain a surveillance presence in the Arctic is fundamental to the assertion of its sovereignty. Now Northrup Grumman, the U.S. military giant, thinks it has a novel answer – albeit it an expensive one.
> 
> It has proposed selling to Canada three, unarmed long-range and long-endurance Polar Hawks – a modified versions of the Global Hawk already used by the U.S. military for spy and surveillance missions.
> 
> Capable of 30-hour flights, a trio of Polar Hawks could provide a constant summer surveillance presence over the Canadian Arctic, operating out of a single base, such as Labrador’s Goose Bay, according to Northrop Grumman.
> 
> They could also provide coastal patrol in the Atlantic and Pacific, monitor forest fires and floods, and provide scientific and environmental sensing.
> 
> What can and can’t Polar Hawks do?
> 
> No more Tally Ho photos of Canadian warplanes closing on aging Russian Bear long-range bombers. While good for propaganda purposes and much loved by fighter pilots, the reality is that 21st-century sovereignty patrols aren’t really about challenging Cold War manned bombers.
> 
> The unarmed, pre-programmed Polar Hawks won’t – and can’t. In fact, they are designed to fly 10 kilometres up, way above commercial jets and the high winds that make smaller drones problematic to use in the Arctic. Any intercepts will still be done by Canada’s next fleet of warplanes, F-35s or something else.
> 
> Operating at high latitudes, close to the North Pole, presents special problems in terms of navigation, communication and data transmission. Global Hawks usually rely on data links to satellites orbiting over the equator but they can’t be sighted easily above the Arctic Circle because of the curvature of the globe.
> 
> Although NASA has flown its modified Global Hawks within 500 kilometres of the North Pole on ice surveys, additional communications links using low-orbiting Iridium satellites will be needed for Polar Hawks.
> 
> Northrop Grumman believes those links will make high-latitude risks manageable and, it claims, a Polar Hawk that loses all its communication links will still complete the pre-programmed mission and return to base, all without any human intervention.
> 
> Among the biggest hurdles: Canada’s military doesn’t even have a stated requirement for high-flying drones, let alone a budget. And some air force generals, most of them former fighter pilots, still regard pilot-less planes with disdain although that prejudice is disappearing the United States as drones prove their worth.
> 
> What would they cost?
> 
> Northrop Grumman won’t reveal the cost, claiming only that its 20-year proposal to provide, support and maintain a trio of Polar Hawks is comparable to other platforms, meaning new manned surveillance and patrol aircraft.
> 
> Still a look at what NATO, Germany and others are paying for small fleets of modified Global Hawks suggests the bill to Canada would be roughly $1.6-billion to buy and operate three Polar Hawks for two decades.
> 
> That’s a huge expense for a relatively small military like Canada’s with no experience in operating high-altitude, long-endurance spy planes, either manned or unmanned. A single crash – and a U.S. Navy version of a Global Hawk went down in Maryland last month – would have a massive impact on the whole program.
> 
> Northrup Grumman has teamed with Canadian aerospace and defence support provider L-3 MAS, which has a long history with the Canadian air force, to make a turn-key unsolicited bid to Ottawa.
> 
> Northrup Grumman would provide the Polar Hawks and the ground communications stations with L-3 MAS providing maintenance and support.
> 
> Because the Polar Hawks are covered by U.S. security and defence limitations, all missions would need to be commanded by a Canadian air force officer, although the actual military role might be minimal.
> 
> What civilian and military missions would be possible?
> 
> Although the Polar Hawk is primarily a military asset – and Northrop Grumman notes it could usefully have played a reconnaissance role over Libya during last summer’s air war alongside U.S. Global Hawks – the program is also being sold for its non-military versatility.
> 
> While Polar Hawks could find Russian or Chinese icebreakers poking around the edges of Canada’s contested Arctic claims, their sophisticated sensor packages could also measure ice area and thickness, detect oil spills, perhaps even count muskox and polar bears.
> 
> Details of the sensor packages, radar, high-resolution still and video cameras in both visible light and infrared, are classified. But it is evident from publicly available images that high-flying drones can detect and track individuals.
> 
> That sort of surveillance can be done through heavy clouds and during the long Arctic night in winter and delivered by streaming video and data links as well as stored onboard for later analysis.
> 
> In Canada, other government departments including Fisheries, the Environment, Energy and Northern Affairs might seek data collected by Polar Hawks.



So it looks like they're planning to use Iridium to fill in for any gaps in coverage to geo-stationary stellites. My original question (poorly phrased) was on how far away a ground station could operate a Global Hawk if they lost the uplink to the satellite.


----------



## Loachman

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think that the numbers could be cut back from your estimate a bit with some efficient planning.  For instance you think/estimate that there would be four shifts required to fly two aircraft on one patrol area.



I would suggest that these numbers are barest minimum and would not cover sustained operations, and personnel requirements to cover sickness, leave, and courses have already been pointed out.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am sure that if you look at it, you would also be able to cut back on your other operators, analysts, maintainers, etc.  They would all be working with multiple aircraft, not dedicate solely to one airframe.



I am sure that this guarantees poor focus on the part of the crews, plus a given number of maintainers can only provide a given number of serviceable airframes and a given mumber of analysts can only analyse a given amount of material.

US-based crews experienced difficulty operating over Afghanistan one day and Iraq the next etcetera, and in different areas in each country. It was/is disorienting.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Could one operating base, centrally located, also factor in on the reduction of personnel?



Yes, probably, but the above still applies. And the same amount of mission-related infrastructure is required regardless of how it is dispersed.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Afghanistan is an example.  Most of the operators were in the US.  Only the pers necessary to control the aircraft for the launch and recovery of the shorter range RPVs were in Afghanistan.



Armed Predator and Reaper were operated by crews in KAF, as satellite delay was too great for engaging moving targets.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Here, at home, with no threat, an airfield centrally located, could easily house all the pers necessary to fly these RPVs and monitor all of Canada's areas of responsibility and interest.



One centrally-located airfield could assure significant transit time to and from patrol areas.

Sperwer missions lasted four to five hours and were surprisingly demanding. The same amount of time in a real cockpit is less fatiguing in my experience, and lack of stimuli/boredom is a factor as well. I cannot imagine longer shifts in any UAV without significant degradation in personal performance. Adequate rest between shifts is absolutely essential, and that requires adequate numbers of crews and stable shift schedules.

We started our tour with four crews and a mandate to fly one mission per day. We were bounced all around the clock, though, and had to have a crew on standby for short-notice launches.

Leave season dropped us to three crews for a few months, plus we lost one guy mid-tour to sickness and one later on for a higher-priority posting but managed to sustain three launches daily for about six weeks. We ended up with two crews for the last month and consistently did two launches nightly, however we had a fixed schedule through those periods.

We also did not have to worry about kids and school, grocery shopping, house maintenance and repairs, and all of the other usual life issues.

For all of its small size, Sperwer was the most expensive aircraft that the CF operated per flying hour for a variety of reasons, one of which was the number of people required to operate, maintain, and support it.

UAVs are not cheap, either in terms of money or PYs.


----------



## GAP

> One centrally-located airfield could assure significant transit time to and from patrol areas.



Churchill


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I'm pretty sure that the military and the government has _most_ of the bugs and logistics worked out.

While we've seen some pretty silly things from both, I doubt they just decided to go buy these things, stick them in a hanger and then try figure the manning, control, pers and props to make it all work.  

Lots of things happen well above our paygrade and purview.
But it is fun, and informative, watching all the second guessing.


----------



## Edward Campbell

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would think that you are correct, in that we would need a fair number of people to operate these "Sqns", but I think that the numbers could be cut back from your estimate a bit with some efficient planning.  For instance you think/estimate that there would be four shifts required to fly two aircraft on one patrol area.  I would say that with some planning that could be cut to three, with an over lap of two shifts during the launch/recovery stage of the RPVs.  While one shift is launching a RPV and moving on Station, the other is landing a RPV.  Once that stage of the handover is done, there is only the need for another shift to fly on Station.  Only during the handover stage of a patrol would you have two shifts on overlapping schedules.  Other than that, you would have one shift on and two off.  No need for a fourth.




Nonsense. Sustained, 24/7, 365 day/year, year after year require 5:1 depth




> I am sure that if you look at it, you would also be able to cut back on your other operators, analysts, maintainers, etc.  They would all be working with multiple aircraft, not dedicate solely to one airframe.



If anything Dimsum's numbers are consevative.




> Could one operating base, centrally located, also factor in on the reduction of personnel?  Why not?  Afghanistan is an example.  Most of the operators were in the US.  Only the pers necessary to control the aircraft for the launch and recovery of the shorter range RPVs were in Afghanistan.   Global Hawk, if I am correct, was launched well outside of Afghanistan.  Once in the air, the control was passed to operators in the US.  Here, at home, with no threat, an airfield centrally located, could easily house all the pers necessary to fly these RPVs and monitor all of Canada's areas of responsibility and interest.



That's very situational ~ professionals plan for something near to the worst case.


----------



## The Bread Guy

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that the military and the government has _most_ of the bugs and logistics worked out.
> 
> While we've seen some pretty silly things from both, I doubt they just decided to go buy these things, stick them in a hanger and then try figure the manning, control, pers and props to make it all work.
> 
> Lots of things happen well above our paygrade and purview.


One hopes....


----------



## George Wallace

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Nonsense. Sustained, 24/7, 365 day/year, year after year require 5:1 depth



Fine.  I can go with that assumption.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If anything Dimsum's numbers are consevative.



I disagree.  As pointed out, we have other means covering both East and West Coasts, in all weather conditions, at the moment.  That would quite concievably do away with two thirds of his conceived requirements.  

As for my statement to them working with multiple aircraft, not dedicated to one airframe, let me clarify that:  No one Tail Number (I am talking about a RPV/UAV/RPA/whatever the term of the day is) requires four shifts of operators to fly it.  Multiple shifts will be required to fly that 'one' Tail Number over its flight.  Is there a requirement for four shifts?  I suggested that while one shift is flying it on Station, two are resting.  When it is time to land that aircraft, the shift on duty will take the aircraft off Station and land it, while concurrently another shift is getting another airframe into the air and on Station, leaving one shift still resting.  Once the outgoing shift has landed, the hand over done to the oncoming shift, they join the current shift in the rest cycle.  There is no requirement for a fourth shift.  The same could be said for the other SMEs that would be required for this/these Sqns. 

Centralizing the airframes in one location cuts down on maint pers required.  

If alternate or forward locations are required, then of course you need more pers; but do those locations have to be at 100% manning or manned at all?




			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That's very situational ~ professionals plan for something near to the worst case.



True.  Plan for the worse case scenario.  I might bring up one CF organization that does just that, and not to the numbers that you and Dimsum suggest - CF Fire Fighters.  Just look how they set up their shift work. 

Another clarification I'd like to make is that I am thinking of RPVs with long range/long loiter time capabilities; not shorter range/short loiter time RPVs that have been mentioned as being used in Afghanistan.  I am thinking about the type of RPV mentioned ref this article.


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I disagree.  As pointed out, we have other means covering both East and West Coasts, in all weather conditions, at the moment.  That would quite concievably do away with two thirds of his conceived requirements.



This is an incorrect assessment in just about every way imaginable.



> There is no requirement for a fourth shift.



US experience with 24/7 operation of Global Hawk says different.


----------



## George Wallace

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> US experience with 24/7 operation of Global Hawk says different.



I will accept that.  Will we operate exactly the same as they, or will we do things differently as we find is the norm in most, if not all, our occupations?

Do you operate with the same amount of shifts as the Americans in your 'flying posn'?


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Do you operate with the same amount of shifts as the Americans in your 'flying posn'?



Relatively speaking, yes.

They are on a much larger scale but the ratios are similar.


----------



## dapaterson

One additional consideration:  To maintain 24/7 coverage of a location, two simultaneous crews are required, operating two aircraft:

Crew A is on station.

Crew B launches, transits, and arrives on station.

Crew A leaves station and returns for recovery.


Having only a single crew means only a single platform is operating, which means coverage gaps when the platform is transiting to and from the area of interest.


----------



## Old Sweat

Have we established that 24/7 UAV coverage is required? There may be other options including having the capability to launch 24/7, but not necessarily having a system on station.


----------



## aesop081

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Have we established that 24/7 UAV coverage is required? There may be other options including having the capability to launch 24/7, but not necessarily having a system on station.



Of course there is. We have plenty of capabilities we do not operate 24/7. The capability to do so as needed is required and the force has to be structured to be able to operate 24/7, even if it is for a limited amount of time.


----------



## George Wallace

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> They are on a much larger scale ........




 ;D

Yes they are, and they are more specialized, often employing three to ten pers to do the same job that we employ one or two.


----------



## Old Sweat

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Of course there is. We have plenty of capabilities we do not operate 24/7. The capability to do so as needed is required and the force has to be structured to be able to operate 24/7, even if it is for a limited amount of time.



Thanks. I think that is what I meant.


----------



## Loachman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> One additional consideration:  To maintain 24/7 coverage of a location, two simultaneous crews are required, operating two aircraft:
> 
> Crew A is on station.
> 
> Crew B launches, transits, and arrives on station.
> 
> Crew A leaves station and returns for recovery.
> 
> 
> Having only a single crew means only a single platform is operating, which means coverage gaps when the platform is transiting to and from the area of interest.



Presuming that whatever we buy has at least the same capabilities as simple, ancient, French Sperwer, then that is not entirely so as one crew can control two UAVs simultaneously, although one would be "inactive" and flying autonomously. This would cover the transit period.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Centralizing the airframes in one location cuts down on maint pers required.



Not really, as "maint pers required" is driven by workload, ie number of airframes and flying rates, rather than location. Some other personnel savings may be expected by consolidating, however.

As we do not know what we will get, if we get anything, and what its capabilities and requirements really are, such speculation is not particularly valid anyway.


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes they are, and they are more specialized, often employing three to ten pers to do the same job that we employ one or two.



There is a difference between "often" and "always". Furthermore, how they structure their MOS has little bearing on this discussion.


----------



## Loachman

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes they are, and they are more specialized, often employing three to ten pers to do the same job that we employ one or two.



I do not think that the difference in crew positions between our Auroras and their Orions varies by even the lower end of your range.

Reaper crews consist of two pers, and sometimes an analyst.


----------



## aesop081

Loachman said:
			
		

> I do not think that the difference in crew positions between our Auroras and their Orions varies by even the lower end of your range.



They require less dry sensor operators then we do ( 2 on the CP-140 and 1 on the P-3C), the rest of the crew is the same.


----------



## George Wallace

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> There is a difference between "often" and "always". Furthermore, how they structure their MOS has little bearing on this discussion.



Perhaps it does, as you brought up how the US does things.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps it does, as you brought up how the US does things.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32C0eKRQVt8

 ;D


----------



## dimsum

After reading the replies, I should clarify a few things when I made up the numbers:

1.  I assumed one operating base (e.g. Winnipeg) in the centre of the country.  Multiple bases obviously add to the amount of pers required.
2.  If there were FOLs, they are temporary, although the US experience has been to station Launch and Recovery Teams whose sole job is to land and take-off the Reaper/GH in-theatre.  That will add another bunch of people into the mix.
3.  I assumed that at least initially, NAV CANADA (or any other agency) would be wary of letting an RPA transit autonomously for 4+ hours until being ONSTA, especially if it involves going through potentially-busy civilian airspace (e.g. Airways between Toronto and Vancouver)
4.  The idea of having 2 full crews per RPA is as Loachman said; the boredom and lack of sensory input is more pronounced on RPAs than manned aircraft.  When I was operating the Heron, we tried to switch off every 2 hours because of that.  To effect a true handover, at some point 3 crews have to be there (ie. Crew A, then B, then A, then C, then B, then C...etc.) as unlike a manned aircraft, the entire process is done while the mission is still running.

So, as E.R. Campbell has also stated, my numbers are conservative and really I should bump them up to account for the above considerations.


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps it does, as you brought up how the US does things.



I sure did. The Mission Control element of an RQ-4 in the USAF consists of one pilot and one sensor operator. You can put all the "less specialized" Canadians you want in there, it will still take 2 people.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Wouldn't the Polar Hawk be patterned after the USN version (minus the crashing into Maryland part)? It's supposed to have a radar and other sensors as well. Don't they need to be watched, or does it just pass tracks instead of raw video?


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from MERX:





> The Canadian Forces (CF) has a need to field and support interoperable, network-enabled Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) to provide Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR), Target Acquisition, and all-weather precision strike capabilities in support of CF operations worldwide. The objective of this Request for Information (RFI) is to share with Industry CF UAS requirement and seek feedback from Industry on potential options to meet CF needs and associated capability, schedule and cost. This is the first step of an Industry Engagement process where the JUSTAS project will be seeking initial input on availability of technology, ability for industry to deliver and cost estimates for the initial acquisition of the required UAS capability .... This is not a bid solicitation, and no contract will result from this RFI ....


More in the MERX bid package here (Google Docs)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Wanted:  Engineers for JUSTAS  _“The Department of National Defence (DND) requires the services of four (4) Senior Engineers for services within the Joint UAS Surveillance Target Acquisition System (JUSTAS) Project ….”_ – more “who does what” details in bid package excerpt (11 pages) here.


----------



## dimsum

http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=09ab61a2-14b8-4d56-9374-f8fd558c888f&sponsor=

2 questions:  

1:  When did the Ottawa Citizen break the story?  I try to keep up with Canadian military news but completely skipped this.
2.  I'm surprised that a paper based in Edmonton would be so anti-CF.


----------



## Journeyman

I didn't read it as anti-CF; rather it pointed out the realities of defence economics (stuff is expensive and so if not justified becomes an easy target for cuts) as well as noting that air attacks on human HVTs is a divisive topic.
      :dunno:


----------



## dimsum

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I didn't read it as anti-CF; rather it pointed out the realities of defence economics (stuff is expensive and so if not justified becomes an easy target for cuts) as well as noting that air attacks on human HVTs is a divisive topic.
> :dunno:



Off topic, but this is a bone of contention for me.  From a political/strategic point of view, what is the difference in targetting someone via CF-18 or UAV, especially if both are using Precision Guided Munitions (Hellfire, GBU, JDAM, etc)?  All have a person somewhere (or in the case of most UAVs, multiple people somewhere) looking through a camera of some sort.  Like every other type of strike, JTACs have a hand in it as well.  

I believe that the argument that "hitting people with a Reaper is bad, but hitting the same people with a GBU dropped via Sniper pod off a fast jet is better" is ridiculous, given the above reasons.  If anything, the loiter time of an armed UAV will allow for longer time for the crews to check for potential civ casualties, collateral damage, etc.


----------



## aesop081

Dimsum said:
			
		

> what is the difference



Public perception. People have come to believe that UAV strikes are nothing other than assassination campaigns, not tools of legitimate combat.


----------



## Journeyman

Dimsum said:
			
		

> From a political/strategic point of view, what is the difference....


I tried to explain, but got "PM could not be sent to 'Dimsum' as their inbox is full!"


----------



## Baz

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Like every other type of strike, JTACs have a hand in it as well.



That's not strickly true.  JTACs normally are only involved in the presence of friendly troops, ie for tactical action (thus Joint TACTICAL Air Controller), such as Close Air or Battlefield Interdiction.

For Operational Strike (like Libya), targetting is done in a targetting cell within the JFACC; the Targetteers are Intelligence Officers.  That's why what Canada did with JTACs onboard the CP-140 was innovative; you could say it broke new ground.  The US does it with JSTARS, NATO is looking at doing it with AWACS, which is why they controlled a Scan Eagle:
http://www.aco.nato.int/page272203947.aspx

There is a "discussion" within NATO between tactical and operational targetting, and at a higher level between ISR information to the edge or to the center.  This shouldn't be a surprise, becuase that discussion goes all the way back to Normandy and the use of Strategic Air for tactical support, with no real answer to this day if it was successful.


----------



## dimsum

Baz, thanks for the clarification.  Pretty interesting stuff.


----------



## Kirkhill

Baz said:
			
		

> That's not strickly true.  JTACs normally are only involved in the presence of friendly troops, ie *for tactical action *  (thus Joint TACTICAL Air Controller), such as Close Air or Battlefield Interdiction.
> 
> For* Operational Strike *  (like Libya), targetting is done in a targetting cell within the JFACC; the Targetteers are Intelligence Officers.  That's why what Canada did with JTACs onboard the CP-140 was innovative; you could say it broke new ground.  The US does it with JSTARS, NATO is looking at doing it with AWACS, which is why they controlled a Scan Eagle:
> http://www.aco.nato.int/page272203947.aspx
> 
> There is a "discussion" within NATO between *tactical and operational *  targetting, and at a higher level between ISR information to the edge or to the center.  This shouldn't be a surprise, becuase that discussion goes all the way back to Normandy and the use *of Strategic Air for tactical support*, with no real answer to this day if it was successful.



And on the subject of "trees falling in the forest and making noise"..... Did the Libyan strikes ever happen?  Apparently there are those that believe the Operational level of combat doesn't exist.

Sorry Baz - no disrespect meant to you.  Your point was clearly and cogently made, even for this civilian.

I just couldn't resist a dig at others.  ;D >

Cheers.


----------



## hagan_91

Link removed in accordance with site owner policy.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## MarkOttawa

_Spiegel Online_, silly piece:

"'Humane' Drones Are the Most Brutal Weapons of All

The German military is considering the purchase of combat drones. But we should not allow ourselves to be seduced by the idea that an unmanned aircraft is a humane weapon. On the contrary, they expose the true nature of war in all its brutality..."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/essay-on-german-plans-to-acquire-combat-drones-a-848851.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Not totally silly, penultimate para:

"Drones are a smart weapon, but also an insidious one, because the ethics surrounding their use are so complicated. Nevertheless, the Bundeswehr could be taking the right step if it acquires armed drones. But they cannot be used to hunt down terrorists. Germany is a country based on the rule of law and one which does not have the death penalty. As such, it should not get involved in remote-controlled executions. Unmanned aircraft make sense as support for ground troops during combat operations [and many other types of strike missions]. Apart from that, the future of security policy belongs to the robots, and it would be wrong to ignore this development."

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## dimsum

http://www.startribune.com/nation/165867156.html

Interesting.


----------



## Privateer

Can anyone provide me with a link to the documents referred to in the following quote from this article: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/canadian-military-spend-1-billion-unmanned-armed-drones-181629244.html:



> According to a report in the Ottawa Citizen, the Harper government recently approved a military 'request to aerospace firms' to provide details about the types of drones now available in the marketplace.
> 
> The 'request' pointed out the need for the unmanned aircraft to operate in the Arctic. The aircraft should also be able to carry precision-guided munitions, the government said.
> 
> "This capability will allow the CF [Canadian Forces] to fill critical deficiencies," industry officials were told in the request for information sent to them July 23.
> 
> According to DND documents, the military intends to spend around $1 billion on the project.



Specifically, the "request" and/or the "DND documents".  I've seen spin put on this in the media, and I'd like to read the actual documents.  

I tried searching the forum, but couldn't find anything.  

Thanks in advance.


----------



## PuckChaser

We have "What's Canada buying" threads here kept up by Milnews.ca, that should have those bid documents. They come from MERX.


----------



## Privateer

I looked through the "What's Canada buying" threads for August, July, and June 2012, and I didn't see it.  That's when I posted this thread.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Did a quick search on MERX of the key phrases used in the story, but no joy.  That said, the original story talks about documents shared with industry, so they may not have appeared publicly via MERX - happy to hear from anyone who knows MERX better than I do on this, though.

Will continue to hunt & will share anything I find.


----------



## dimsum

I could be wrong, but I vaguely remember seeing something about it around the March/April timeframe, which sticks out in my mind b/c that was about the time I got posted OUTCAN and was getting questions about our future program from my co-workers.


----------



## Privateer

OK, I looked at MERX (thanks for the tip!), and this is probably the basis for the report: http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-%24%24BL-293-23008&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=PAGE3&rowcount=29&lastpage=3&MoreResults=&PUBSORT=2&CLOSESORT=0&IS_SME=Y&hcode=YL4hVGPyNRebH8gt6UpFWg%3d%3d



		Code:
	

JUSTAS PROJECT-REQUEST FOR INFORMAT(ION)


But there aren't any documents provided, or links to any more detail (such as the "$1 billion" reference).  Am I stuck there, or is there a place I can look for more detail?

Thanks again for the help.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Privateer said:
			
		

> OK, I looked at MERX (thanks for the tip!), and this is probably the basis for the report: http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-%24%24BL-293-23008&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=PAGE3&rowcount=29&lastpage=3&MoreResults=&PUBSORT=2&CLOSESORT=0&IS_SME=Y&hcode=YL4hVGPyNRebH8gt6UpFWg%3d%3d
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> JUSTAS PROJECT-REQUEST FOR INFORMAT(ION)
> 
> 
> But there aren't any documents provided, or links to any more detail (such as the "$1 billion" reference).  Am I stuck there, or is there a place I can look for more detail?
> 
> Thanks again for the help.


DOHHH!  Good catch.

In return, if this is indeed the correct MERX posrting, here it is in the JUSTAS thread, with a link to at least some of the bid documents ....


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This from MERX:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Canadian Forces (CF) has a need to field and support interoperable, network-enabled Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) to provide Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR), Target Acquisition, and all-weather precision strike capabilities in support of CF operations worldwide. The objective of this Request for Information (RFI) is to share with Industry CF UAS requirement and seek feedback from Industry on potential options to meet CF needs and associated capability, schedule and cost. This is the first step of an Industry Engagement process where the JUSTAS project will be seeking initial input on availability of technology, ability for industry to deliver and cost estimates for the initial acquisition of the required UAS capability .... This is not a bid solicitation, and no contract will result from this RFI ....
> 
> 
> 
> More in the MERX bid package here (Google Docs)
Click to expand...


P.S. - If this is, indeed the document the media has "obtained", I guess Milnet.ca "obtained" it first, no?    Remember where you read it first!


----------



## Privateer

Thank you!


----------



## The Bread Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This from MERX
> 
> 
> 
> The Canadian Forces (CF) has a need to field and support interoperable, network-enabled Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) to provide Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR), Target Acquisition, and all-weather precision strike capabilities in support of CF operations worldwide. The objective of this Request for Information (RFI) is to share with Industry CF UAS requirement and seek feedback from Industry on potential options to meet CF needs and associated capability, schedule and cost. This is the first step of an Industry Engagement process where the JUSTAS project will be seeking initial input on availability of technology, ability for industry to deliver and cost estimates for the initial acquisition of the required UAS capability .... This is not a bid solicitation, and no contract will result from this RFI ....
> 
> 
> 
> :More in the MERX bid package here (Google Docs)
Click to expand...

The latest clarification on what "DND Single Fuel Policy" means, and where the UAV's'll be stationed ("No firm decision on the basing location has been announced by the Canadian Government.") in the latest bid document update here (Google Docs).


----------



## ckamp

Hi there,

Newbie military UAV enthusiast here from Montreal, hello to all!

I am quite impressed by Milnews.ca's published documents relating to the recent letter of interest package.. Quite alot of info on the JUSTAS UAV.

I noticed milnews.ca has posted two amendments to it, I think number 5 and 6. I would like to get a comment from the webmaster as to whether or not amendenments 1 through 4 are available anywhere?

Thanks


----------



## CougarKing

Related:

link



> *Made-in-Canada military drones could cost defence contractors millions*
> 
> One of the main objectives of Canada's defence spending over the years, besides equipping the military with the gear they need, is to ensure taxpayers get the maximum economic bang for their buck.
> 
> That policy has cut across party lines over the years regardless of which party was in power, though the execution has not always been smooth.
> 
> Now, The Canadian Press reports the Conservative government's budget-cutting program in National Defence could end up biting Canada's defence industries.
> 
> *The government last year announced it was pulling out of two NATO-led aerial surveillance programs in hopes of saving up to $90 million a year. It aims to slash the defence budget by $2.5 billion by next year.
> 
> But documents obtained by CP under access-to-information legislation, reveal Canada's participation in the Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) drone program and the Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) had resulted in millions of dollars in contracts to Canadian high-tech firms.*
> 
> The AGS program aims to develop a drone for more than a dozen NATO member countries, giving military commanders a better picture of their operational theatre.
> 
> AWACS is an evolution of the Cold War-era use of converted Boeing 707 jets mounted with massive rotating radar saucers as flying early-warning platforms. AWAC planes were used successfully in the air war over Libya in 2011. That same year, word leaked out Canada was cutting its participation, CBC News reported at the time.
> 
> Canada played a key role in AWACS operations, with an RCAF general commanding the German-based wing. The last Canadian handed over command in June.
> 
> “It was under Canadian leadership that the Operations Wing transformed the operation of the E-3A aircraft from largely an airborne early warning and surveillance platform to a modern-day airborne C2 force equipped and ready to provide command and control to the NATO commanders of the 21st century," U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Andrew Mueller said during the handover ceremony.
> 
> According to documents obtained by CP, *Canadian firms now will no longer be able to bid on contracts related to the programs and can't renew the ones they already hold.
> 
> “Canadian industry will be affected by our withdrawal from AWACS” operations and service agreement*, said a Jan. 12, 2012 memo to then-defence minister Peter MacKay.
> 
> The decision to pull out of the programs was puzzling, given that earlier this year then-public works minister Rona Ambrose received a report recommending Canada do a better job of exploiting the potential economic benefits of defence spending.
> 
> As recently as last January, General Dynamics Canada announced it had been awarded a contract for the AGS program to provide software to control communications between Northrop Grumman's Global Hawk drone and the ground.
> 
> The Ottawa Citizen's defence writer, *David ********, reported on his blog in May 2012 that Northrop's contract to supply and maintain the Global Hawk unmanned planes was $1.7 billion.
> 
> Vice-Admiral Bob Davidson, Canada's military representative at NATO in Brussels, defended the government's decision. It makes strategic sense if Canada wants to develop its own systems, he told CP.
> 
> “Fundamentally, it is about a better way for the government to focus our defence spending,” Davidson said. “And we’re trying to put more of our defence spending towards Canadian capabilities.”
> *
> 
> Canada spent $161 million a year on its share of maintenance costs of AWACS program between 1992 and 2010 but Canadian companies were paid $180 million to perform some of the work, CP said. Canadian firms also received $146 million in contracts to overhaul and upgrade the AWACS fleet — a 115 per cent return on the government's contribution, CP said.
> 
> Liberal defence critic John McKay saw the program cuts as an arbitrary attempt to slash costs without thinking it through.
> 
> “The way the government seems to be going about it is slap-dash, particularly when you consider it has billions of dollars in unspent budget funds, money Parliament allocated but they haven’t spent,” he told CP.
> 
> 
> (...)


----------



## dimsum

The link to the NATO AGS website doesn't list Canada as one of the participating members in the program.  It would have been nice; Italy would have been a great posting   :nod:


----------



## Baz

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The link to the NATO AGS website doesn't list Canada as one of the participating members in the program.  It would have been nice; Italy would have been a great posting   :nod:



Canada withdrew as a procuring Nation over a year ago, with a penalty payment to leave.  As part of the negotiations the Canadian company participation was kept.

Currently Denmark and Poland are looking to get in.

However, Operations of AGS are comon funded, that means all 28 NATO Nations will pay for it (including Canada) and are eligible to send military pers to the force.  France and the UK have elected to provide Contributions In Kind instead: providing NATO an "equivalent" platform with the right number of flying hours instead of paying into the ops.

Right now Canada has no intention to put people in Sig; however Joint Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (JISR) (and Targeting) are big deals in NATO, coming out of OUP (there were plenty of fighters to drop things but the Targeting Cycle was a skeleton), as reinforced by the Chicago summit.  Anyone that did go into Sig would be isolated post; the original plan was 56 plus support but that isn't happening.

The hardest spots to fill will be ISR: Intelligence Analysts, espicially Imagery Analysts; and Surveillance Operators: ACSOs, MARS and NCIOps, AWCs and ACOps, and Combat Arms with TOC experience.  There may be some space for AESOPs, not on the ISR crew but the flight crew, but the sensor operator position is still under discussion; becuase it is a SAR/GMTI radar it is possible to automate the management of the collection deck.


----------



## Kirkhill

Does Canada's position have anything to do with the national domestic requirement for these types of systems?

The European partners seem to be focusing on supplying these for expeditionary applications.  In fact with the high population density, tight borders and crowded airspace they can't fly these things domestically unless WWIII or another Icelandic volcano grounds all civilian air traffic (check on the German Minister of Defence's travails over his UAV project).

It seems to me that Canada is better off keeping its bucks in its back pocket and using them to procure its own national UAV fleet, which can be used both domestically and internationally, at the government's discretion, than it is throwing them into a pool that may never permit them to be used over Canada.

Of course this assumes that Canada can get its procurement act together and actually buy stuff it needs in a timely fashion at a reasonable price.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Of course this assumes that Canada can get its procurement act together and actually buy stuff it needs in a timely fashion at a reasonable price.


Yer funny, I like you.  Forgot it was "tell a joke Thursday".


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The European partners seem to be focusing on supplying these for expeditionary applications.  In fact with the high population density, tight borders and crowded airspace they can't fly these things domestically unless WWIII or another Icelandic volcano grounds all civilian air traffic (check on the German Minister of Defence's travails over his UAV project.)



There was an article a few months back regarding the first test of TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance Systems) between an UAV and a manned airplane (airliner size, I think).  It was done over Spanish airspace and not surprisingly, it worked out perfectly.

I wouldn't be surprised that once the FAA opens American domestic airspace for UAVs in 2015, EUROCONTROL will do the same for Europe.  Then, hopefully Canada, etc. will follow suit.*

* Is it still "tell a joke Thursday"?


----------



## dimsum

Bumping this thread:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/somnia/article20088860/



> The Canadian military’s almost decade-long quest to buy unmanned aerial vehicles has been partly hung up by an internal debate about whether the air forces needs one — or two — different fleets of drones.



Sigh.


----------



## jeffb

“Had a (UAV) capability existed it would have been utilized in most, if not all, recent natural disasters,” said an April 2013 slide presentation drawn up by the project management office

Ah, but a UAV capability DOES exist. The army UAV program is humming along just fine with the MUAV coming on line and a new SUAV.


----------



## dimsum

Bumping an old thread, by Terry Glavin in Maclean's:



> It was an otherwise utterly unremarkable thing for Canada’s chief of the defence staff to say out loud: we’d like some drones, please, and the ones with the capability of carrying precision-guided munitions would be best. That’s pretty well all Gen. Jonathan Vance mentioned, almost in passing, when he appeared last week at a Senate defence committee meeting. What’s remarkable is that Vance’s comments were taken in some quarters as the raising of a curtain on a stirring debate about a “controversial” subject.
> 
> Why all the angst?
> 
> Remotely operated aircraft have been on the Canadian Forces’ wish list since the 1990s. Trials of a variety of drone prototypes began at the Canadian Forces Experimentation Centre in 2002. During the Afghanistan mission, the Canadian Forces leased two types of long-range drones for surveillance purposes, and from time to time called in for help from missile-bearing American drones. As far back as 2008, the Canadian Forces brass was explicit: drones with “all-weather precision strike capabilities” were a “requirement” for Canada’s overseas operations.
> 
> Nobody is proposing a covert black-ops assassination program here. This isn’t about weaponizing space and we’re not being lured by the military-industrial complex into some sinister high-tech arms intrigue. During last year’s election campaign, Justin Trudeau promised to look for a cheaper alternative to the Conservatives’ closed-bid, $44-billion, 40-year F-35 jet purchase. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan is in the early innings of a full defence policy review, and it logically follows that the little remotely operated airplanes Trudeau promised to acquire for a “leaner, more agile, better-equipped military” might sensibly come geared to pack “smart” bombs.
> 
> Several European NATO countries have already acquired weapons-capable drones, and so have NATO’s adversaries. Even Iran’s Lebanese proxy terror group Hezbollah was using drones to drop bombs in Syria two years ago. Let’s be cautious, surely. But do we really need to go into group therapy about this?
> 
> It’s true that since 9/11, the application of conventional military rules of engagement has gotten a bit foggy. The Taliban were not an “enemy state” but the Canadian Forces conducted its operations in Afghanistan as though the rules of war applied anyway. We are now at war with Daesh, also known as the Islamic State, but at the same time we’re still not legally in a “state of war.” With the tripling of our Special Operations contingent in northern Iraq in tandem with the withdrawal of the six CF-18s the Conservatives sent in, Canada is still very much in the thick of the fighting. But Gen. Vance insists that the Canadian Forces’ new contribution no longer amounts to a “combat mission.”
> 
> It can all get a bit esoteric, but there’s no need for Canadians to over-complicate what should be a fairly straightforward assessment of the cost-benefit merits of acquiring drones equipped with a payload capacity. It’s not that complicated: “They’re just not fighter jets. They’re basically a different type of aircraft that can be used to carry precision-guided weapons into a combat environment,” Mark Collins, a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, told me. The same kinds of rules and ethical considerations apply fairly seamlessly. Said Gen. Vance: “In my view there’s little point to having a [drone] that can see a danger but can’t strike it.”
> 
> But here’s where legitimate concerns about drones can give way to outright paranoia.
> 
> Armed drones have become Barack Obama’s way to engage in terrorist-infested hellholes without putting “boots on the ground.” For years, the CIA has been running a secrecy-shrouded program of targeted killings in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, and more recently in Somalia, Syria and Iraq. Because it’s a covert program, it’s against the law for American officials to talk about it.
> 
> Civilian-casualty estimates are usually ballpark and often wildly exaggerated. Congressional oversight has been a farce. A push to completely shift the shabby command-and-control lines out of the CIA and into the Defence Department fell apart three years ago, owing to the usual Washington turf battles and congressional brinksmanship.
> 
> That’s not quite how things work in Canada, and there’s little evidence that Canada’s new government is favourably disposed to top-secret overseas assassination boondoggles.
> 
> Every couple of years, the subject of Canada acquiring drones comes up again and there’s always the same scary background music. The drones the Canadian Forces are looking for are mostly for surveillance and reconnaissance along our borders and coasts anyway. If it’s really a go this time, no purchase contract is expected before 2020. Delivery isn’t anticipated until 2025.
> 
> There’s no reason to be wringing our hands about this. There never was.



http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/we-need-to-strop-wringing-our-hands-over-armed-drones/

I've never understood the paranoia about armed RPAs as opposed to manned armed aircraft.  Sensors and weapons are similar, and I suppose if people are scared of a constantly-watching camera on them, the effect of an RPA or something like an Aurora would be the same (endurance/armament issues notwithstanding).  

The media has noted that US has used them in "targeted assassinations" whether flown by the military or other agencies, but it's just another tool in the toolbox they could have used.  Would the same outrage happen if the CIA used F-15s instead?  Would the media then try to ban strike aircraft?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Holy spook, Covertman!  The CIA has F-15s !

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor

Somewhat tangental, DARPA tests a very long endurance UAV powered by a diesel engine. Something with this sort of endurance would certainly have lots of applications where persistence is valued:

http://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2017-01-04



> *Setting World Endurance Record, Vanilla Aircraft Proves to be Anything but Plain*
> Small diesel-powered unmanned airplane pushes the envelope for low-cost, long-range, persistent flight
> 
> OUTREACH@DARPA.MIL
> 1/4/2017
> Image Caption: The Vanilla Aircraft VA001, a small diesel-powered airplane under development through DARPA (left), flew for 56 hours recently over Las Cruces, New Mexico (right), setting a new world record for flight duration for its weight class. The airplane is designed to ultimately carry a 30-pound payload at 15,000 feet for up to 10 days without refueling. Click below for high-resolution image.
> 
> A DARPA-backed small business effort broke boundaries for long-endurance flight this month by launching a uniquely designed, combustion-powered unmanned aircraft that stayed aloft for more than two days and two nights. The flight was terminated several days ahead of schedule because of incoming weather. But the craft—built by Vanilla Aircraft of Falls Church, Virginia—landed safely with more than half its fuel still onboard, suggesting it is capable of setting additional records for powered flight in its weight and power class and could ultimately offer important new capabilities to ground forces and others.
> 
> Small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are an increasingly important means for military forces—especially small dismounted units—to bring extra communications or intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities to the field. Current designs, however, offer relatively limited range and flight endurance; additionally, their need for frequent refueling, specialized launch and recovery equipment, and regular maintenance often limit them to flying from fixed bases close to the front lines. Vanilla’s propeller-driven VA001 is designed to carry a 30-pound payload at 15,000 feet for up to 10 days without refueling.
> 
> The VA001 started its historic flight on the morning of November 30, 2016 at New Mexico State University’s Unmanned Air Systems Flight Test Center near Las Cruces International Airport. For nearly 56 hours, the plane flew at an altitude between 6,500 feet and 7,500 feet above sea level, averaging 57 knots before landing on the afternoon of December 2.
> 
> A representative from the National Aeronautic Association—the organization that verifies and tracks flight-related world records—certified the flight as achieving the world duration record for combustion-powered UAVs in the 50 kg-500 kg subclass (FAI Class U-1.c Group 1). Moreover, the flight was the fourth-longest for any unmanned airplane and the 11th-longest for an airplane of any type (manned or unmanned, solar or fuel-powered).
> 
> “This record-breaking flight demonstrated the feasibility of designing a low-cost UAV able to take off from one side of a continent, fly to the other, perform its duties for a week, and come back—all on the same tank of fuel,” said Jean-Charles Ledé, DARPA program manager. “This capability would help extend the footprint of small units by providing scalable, persistent UAV-based communications and ISR coverage without forward basing, thereby reducing personnel and operating costs. We’re very pleased with what the Vanilla team has accomplished.”
> 
> Image Caption: The Vanilla Aircraft VA001, a small diesel-powered airplane under development through DARPA (left), flew for 56 hours recently over Las Cruces, New Mexico (right), setting a new world record for flight duration for its weight class. The airplane is designed to ultimately carry a 30-pound payload at 15,000 feet for up to 10 days without refueling. Click below for high-resolution image.


----------



## dimsum

Terminology changes, mostly changing "UAV" to "RPA", but also that JUSTAS isn't totally dead.



> UNCLAS
> CANFORGEN 082/17 C AIR FORCE 15/17
> SIC WAA
> BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE
> SUBJ: UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM (UAS) TERMINOLOGY
> REFS: A. CANFORGEN 080/15 C AIR FORCE 13/15 231956Z APR 15
> IMPLEMENTATION OF NATO UAS CLASSIFICATION TABLE
> B. NATO STANDARD ATP-3.3.7, GUIDANCE FOR THE TRAINING OF UNMANNED
> AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) OPERATORS, EDITION B, VERSION 1, APRIL 2014
> 1. AS DIRECTED BY THE CAF AIRWORTHINESS AUTHORITY AT REF A, THE CAF
> ADOPTED THE NATO UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) CLASSIFICATION
> TABLE (REF B). THIS TABLE IDENTIFIES THREE DISTINCT CLASSES OF UAS.
> WHILE THESE CLASSES ARE DEFINED BY SIZE AND WEIGHT, CLASS III UAS
> ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE CAPABLE AND, UNLIKE CURRENT CLASS I AND II,
> ARE INTENDED TO OPERATE IN MORE COMPLEX AIR ENVIRONMENTS SUCH AS
> NON-SEGREGATED AIRSPACE
> 2. NATO AND OTHER ALLIES HAVE ADOPTED A NEW LEXICON. THE TERMS UAV
> AND DRONE ARE OBSOLETE. THE SPECIALISED TERMS, REMOTELY PILOTED
> AIRCRAFT (RPA) AND REMOTELY PILOTED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (RPAS), ARE NOW
> USED AS A SUBSET OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT (UA) AND UAS RESPECTIVELY TO
> DESCRIBE THE LARGER MORE CAPABLE CLASS III SYSTEMS SUCH AS GLOBAL
> HAWK, PREDATOR B, AND HERON TP. THE RCAF JOINT UNMANNED SURVEILLANCE
> AND TARGET ACQUISITION SYSTEM (JUSTAS) PROJECT WILL ALSO PROCURE A
> CLASS III SYSTEM WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE RPA(S) SUBSET OF UA(S)
> 3. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY THE CAF WILL ADOPT THE TERMINOLOGY OF
> RPA(S) FOR NATO CLASS III UA(S). THE TERMS RPA(S) SHALL BE USED WHEN
> REFERRING TO THE JUSTAS PROJECT. ALL OTHER CURRENT AND PROGRAMMED
> CLASS I/II WILL CONTINUE TO EMPLOY THE TERMS UA AND UAS. ALL
> APPLICABLE PUBLICATIONS ARE TO BE AMENDED AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE
> END OF ENGLISH TEXT/DEBUT DU TEXTE FRANCAIS


----------



## Kirkhill

Does the advent of the "Certifiable" Predator impact on the JUSTAS programme?

I seem to recall that compatibility with civil airspace or some such was an issue for the JUSTAS UAVs/RPAs

http://www.ga.com/ga-asis-type-certifiable-predator-b-takes-flight

Although, in general practice, I am not sure that "certifiable" is something you would normally deem a desirable characteristic for any CAF acquisition.


----------



## dimsum

Interesting...



> Canada’s new military drones won’t be used in black-ops missions like assassinations: defence chief
> 
> Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press | June 9, 2017 12:30 AM ET
> 
> OTTAWA — Public perceptions about armed drones have been clouded by Hollywood, Canada’s top soldier said Thursday as he insisted the Canadian Armed Forces won’t be using its stealthy new technology for so-called black-ops missions like assassinations.
> 
> “The fact that they’re armed, I think people have this idea, kind of a Hollywood view of assassination by that,” Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of the defence staff, said in an interview.
> 
> “That’s not the business we’re in. Can I underline that? Double bold it, make it big font? This is not the business that we’re talking about. And this policy is not that.”
> 
> The Liberal government’s long-awaited new defence policy, released Wednesday, said Canada’s military would finally be authorized for the first time to purchase and use armed drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs.
> 
> That decision represents one of the most notable shifts in the new policy, alongside the authorization of government-sanctioned cyberattacks.
> 
> ...



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-new-military-drones-wont-be-used-in-black-ops-missions-like-assassinations-defence-chief


----------



## Ping Monkey

Perhaps some forward momentum on this program?  (finally  :waiting: )


Military Aims for Armed Drones In Six Years
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/military-aims-for-armed-drones-in-six-years/ar-BBTeod7?ocid=ientp





> OTTAWA - The Royal Canadian Air Force is hoping to pull the trigger on the purchase of new armed drones within six years after spending nearly two decades weighing different options.
> 
> The Canadian Forces has been working since the early 2000s to identify and buy a fleet of UAVs that can conduct surveillance over Canada's vast territory as well as support military missions abroad.
> 
> Yet aside from purchasing a small number of temporary, unarmed drones for the war in Afghanistan — all of which have since been retired — the military has never been able to make much progress on a permanent fleet.
> 
> In an interview with The Canadian Press, air force commander Lt.-Gen. Al Meinzinger said he is confident that is about to change after the Trudeau government officially approved the purchase of a fleet of armed UAVs through its defence policy.
> 
> That decision was one of the most notable shifts in the new policy, released in June 2017, which included a promise to spend an extra $62 billion over the next 20 years to expand and strengthen the military.
> 
> No previous federal government had authorized adding drones — armed or not — as a permanent fixture within the Canadian Forces in the same vein as fighter-jet or helicopter squadrons.
> 
> "We say we've got policy top-cover, which means we can see that program clearly in our defence policy," Meinzinger said. "So we're moving that project forward. ... That will be a capability we will see in the next five to six years."
> 
> The Royal Canadian Air Force has been quietly evaluating options and will soon present its ideas to procurement officials, he added. The plan is to buy one type of medium-altitude, long-endurance UAV for the military.
> 
> Drones have taken on an increasingly important role in militaries around the world; a report in the Royal Canadian Air Force Journal in late 2015 said 76 foreign militaries were using them and another 50 were developing them.
> 
> The unmanned aircraft are often used for surveillance and intelligence gathering as well as delivering pinpoint strikes from the air on enemy forces, in places where the use of force has been approved.
> 
> Yet the government's decision to acquire armed drones has prompted questions from some arms-control and human-rights groups that have raised concerns about the legal grey zone around such weapons.
> 
> While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the government considered the drone decision carefully, critics have noted that there are very few rules around their acquisition and use — including in assassinations.
> 
> Meinzinger said drones proved their worth to the Canadian Forces during the war in Afghanistan, where he personally commanded a UAV squadron tasked with monitoring the surrounding countryside.
> 
> As for the government's decision to approve armed drones, "certainly the employment of those weapons will be within the bounds of the law of armed conflict and regulated very clearly," he said.
> 
> Defence chief Gen. Jonathan Vance has previously said the Canadian military plans to use armed drones in much the same way as other conventional weapons, such as fighter jets and artillery.
> While he acknowledged the long road the military has followed in trying to get drones, Meinzinger said: "We have the support of the leadership and the department to continue to move that forward. So I don't see that being a problem at all."


----------



## dimsum

duffman said:
			
		

> Perhaps some forward momentum on this program?  (finally  :waiting: )
> 
> 
> Military Aims for Armed Drones In Six Years
> http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/military-aims-for-armed-drones-in-six-years/ar-BBTeod7?ocid=ientp



So, purchase in 6 years, another 3-5 for delivery and training...and I'm retired before I see them in the flesh.   :


----------



## MarkOttawa

Dimsum:



> Perhaps some forward momentum on this program?  (finally  :waiting: )



Not really--typical Canadian media re-cycling what's already public:



> ...
> *Requirements*
> 
> The long range, long endurance, and beyond line of sight capability of a remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS) will significantly increase the persistence of airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnissance (ISR), providing timely operationally relevant information, such that the Commander can use the information to make effective decisions. The RPAS will complement existing intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnissance (ISTAR)capabilities, increase maritime and Arctic domain awareness and provide precision force application in support of Land and Special Operations Forces. It is envisioned that the RPAS capability will reduce the time between the discovery and request for precision strike and the delivery of the effect. Additionally, the improved situational awareness will provide Commanders and the Whole of Government with better decision support for both domestic and expeditionary missions.
> 
> *Funding Range*
> 
> $1 billion to 4.99 billion
> 
> *Anticipated Timeline (Fiscal Year)*
> 
> Past Start Options Analysis
> 2018 to 2019 Start Definition
> 2022 to 2023 Start Implementation
> 2024 to 2025 Initial Delivery
> 2029 to 2030 Final Delivery
> ...
> http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=977



_On verra_, eh?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Took part in RPV trials in Suffield in the 80's

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=20&ved=2ahUKEwjD9IepvqjgAhWNHDQIHUGaA1kQFjATegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fdtic%2Ftr%2Ffulltext%2Fu2%2Fa636769.pdf&usg=AOvVaw32YHss2Caq_ausxO7eI4jg


----------



## CBH99

Dimsum said:
			
		

> So, purchase in 6 years, another 3-5 for delivery and training...and I'm retired before I see them in the flesh.   :




If you are who I think you are Dimsum, I actually remember you from when you were first getting in.  Pretty unreal an entire career can go by, before seeing us acquire a capability that was actually available BEFORE you got in...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

> "We have the support of the leadership and the department to continue to move that forward. So I don't see that being a problem at all."



Heck, what could go wrong?  It's not like Canada has a history of taking forever, or even spending money to not actually get anything in the end, right?

Am I right?

;D


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile buying used? One only--for RCAF? For Arctic? Note source not Canadian government, how typical:



> Canada bids to buy Euro Hawk surveillance drone from Germany
> 
> BERLIN, Feb 20 (Reuters) - The German Defence Ministry on Wednesday said it is evaluating a bid from Canada to buy a high-altitude surveillance drone that has been parked at a German air base for years after the cancellation of the Euro Hawk programme in 2013.
> 
> A ministry spokesman said a formal bid had been received from Canada for the prototype, which was demilitarised by the U.S. military in 2017, but gave no details. The Canadian embassy in Berlin had no immediate comment.
> 
> NATO was also considering bidding for the drone, but had not yet submitted it, according to sources familiar with the process.
> 
> The German government spent around 700 million euros on the Euro Hawk prototype built by U.S. arms maker Northrop Grumman and the ISIS surveillance system built by Airbus .
> 
> It cancelled the Euro Hawk programme in May 2013 due to soaring costs and problems getting the system certified to fly in Europe. It now is planning to buy several MQ-4C Triton drones from Northrop for deliveries after 2025.
> https://www.reuters.com/article/germany-military-eurohawk/corrected-canada-bids-to-buy-euro-hawk-surveillance-drone-from-germany-idUSL5N20F6N4



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dimsum

I would say that buying a one-off RPA that hasn't flown for years and doesn't have the required avionics, etc. is a really dumb idea...so I'm willing to bet that we're getting it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Is there someone in the grit government who's job it is to look at all the garage and lawn sales for used and useless equipment? Subs, drones, F-18's?

Can't we just go buy something new and off the shelf?

We must have a couple of bucks left here, in Canada, lying around to stop the cheque from bouncing, before the PM finds out and gives it all to Togoland.


----------



## Good2Golf

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I would say that buying a one-off RPA that hasn't flown for years and doesn't have the required avionics, etc. is a really dumb idea...so I'm willing to bet that we're getting it.



Unless silliness in procurement is contagious, and another GoC Department is looking to join Team Used Submarine...Tanks...Vessel...Fighter Jets UAVs? ???

Regards
G2G


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Unless silliness in procurement is contagious, and another GoC Department is looking to join Team Used Submarine...Tanks...Vessel...Fighter Jets UAVs? ???
> 
> Regards
> G2G



The one I could think of is Transport Canada for either testing or NASP in the Arctic, but that's a stretch.


----------



## Sub_Guy

This doesn't make a lick of sense.

I could see Canada operating a fleet of Predators, but this?  This is madness (if true).  The Eurohawk/Global Hawk is much more than we require.

I certainly hope NATO comes in and out bids us.  Maybe that is the plan, have NATO think we are interested so NATO pulls the trigger on a higher bid.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Aircraft may well be for Transport Canada's National Aerial Surveillance Program:

1) Sept. 2018: Transport Canada looking at used German drone to patrol Arctic
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/drone-arctic-transport-canada-1.4838364

2) National Aerial Surveillance Program
https://www.tc.gc.ca/en/programs-policies/programs/national-aerial-surveillance-program.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So any thoughts on this purchase?

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/autos/news/canada-is-officially-trying-to-buy-germanys-unwanted-and-unflyable-rq-4e-euro-hawk-drone/ar-BBTYixA?li=AAggFp0&fbclid=IwAR0UuUjT3bHxtSxWei3DacL4H90fkMWalyMLnvC8WM4E0qBVJYHubHkFVoM


----------



## dimsum

Colin P said:
			
		

> So any thoughts on this purchase?
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-ca/autos/news/canada-is-officially-trying-to-buy-germanys-unwanted-and-unflyable-rq-4e-euro-hawk-drone/ar-BBTYixA?li=AAggFp0&fbclid=IwAR0UuUjT3bHxtSxWei3DacL4H90fkMWalyMLnvC8WM4E0qBVJYHubHkFVoM



Other than "I really hope it's Transport Canada buying it and not the RCAF"?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Other than "I really hope it's Transport Canada buying it and not the RCAF"?



oh... you're good  :nod:


----------



## CBH99

I remember reading a while back an official release from DND stating that they had NO INTEREST in the aircraft, and it was being looked at by a different federal department.

It wasn't very specific at the time, but it was reassurance that this was NOT for RCAF use.


I may write Tyler from TWZ and inform him of the above relevant articles, so his readership isn't confused.  (Which they have every right to be, since it's a military forum such as this, that the use would be for RCAF instead of actual use by Transport Canada).


**Still pretty pathetic.  Better be getting it for free, as any dollars spent on this should be spend on an actual certified UAV from the US.  Certified, operational, spare parts, etc.  But, we all know we're kidding ourselves...    :facepalm:


----------



## Haggis

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Better be getting it for free, as any dollars spent on this should be spend on an actual certified UAV from the US.



Maybe the 10 year, multi-million dollar upgrade and maintenance contract will be awarded to a newly created aerospace subsidiary of SNC-Lavalin before they are found guilty and barred from bidding on  federal contracts for a decade.  :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Gorgo

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Other than "I really hope it's Transport Canada buying it and not the RCAF"?



Agreed.  If the RCAF wants a single airframe that can do both reconnaissance and attack missions, they should go for the MQ-9 Reaper.  The Americans use it in border security and it's already perked some interest with the RCAF; it actually has the proposed designation of CU-163.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

What TC is up to https://twitter.com/i/status/1102614685709467648


----------



## dimsum

Page for the Draft Invitation to Qualify (ITQ) as of 04 Apr 2019:

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-RPS-002-27265?fbclid=IwAR0gm7PpkLvr8V1O7zPSGMXpX_aC-9hGnQJ1EjIKRDFwELn0oTLQaHEojkA


----------



## Cloud Cover

Not that things worked out for them, but ISIL got their RPAV fleet up and running in about a weekend. Heads must have rolled to get that done though.


----------



## TechCrmn

What occupation do you think would end up flying the fleet of drones if we ever choose/purchase them? Pilot, ACSO, Other...?


----------



## blacktriangle

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Not that things worked out for them, but ISIL got their RPAV fleet up and running in about a weekend. Heads must have rolled to get that done though.



They definitely fielded more armed RPA than us, that's for sure...


----------



## dimsum

TechCrmn said:
			
		

> What occupation do you think would end up flying the fleet of drones if we ever choose/purchase them? Pilot, ACSO, Other...?



Both Pilots and ACSOs flew the Heron in Afghanistan with AES Ops being the sensor operator, so I'd imagine the same arrangement would happen.


----------



## CBH99

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Not that things worked out for them, but ISIL got their RPAV fleet up and running in about a weekend. Heads must have rolled to get that done though.



Ha!  I see what ya did there with the rolling head thing...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

TechCrmn said:
			
		

> What occupation do you think would end up flying the fleet of drones if we ever choose/purchase them? Pilot, ACSO, Other...?



_DRONES _don't need pilots.   

CANFORGEN 082/17 C AIR FORCE 15/17 021253Z MAY 17

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM (UAS) TERMINOLOGY

UNCLASSIFIED

REFS: A. CANFORGEN 080/15 C AIR FORCE 13/15 231956Z APR 15 IMPLEMENTATION OF NATO UAS CLASSIFICATION TABLE 
B. NATO STANDARD ATP-3.3.7, GUIDANCE FOR THE TRAINING OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) OPERATORS, EDITION B, VERSION 1, APRIL 2014

1.	AS DIRECTED BY THE CAF AIRWORTHINESS AUTHORITY AT REF A, THE CAF ADOPTED THE NATO UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) CLASSIFICATION TABLE (REF B). THIS TABLE IDENTIFIES THREE DISTINCT CLASSES OF UAS. WHILE THESE CLASSES ARE DEFINED BY SIZE AND WEIGHT, CLASS III UAS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE CAPABLE AND, UNLIKE CURRENT CLASS I AND II, ARE INTENDED TO OPERATE IN MORE COMPLEX AIR ENVIRONMENTS SUCH AS NON-SEGREGATED AIRSPACE 

2.	NATO AND OTHER ALLIES HAVE ADOPTED A NEW LEXICON. THE TERMS UAV AND DRONE ARE OBSOLETE. THE SPECIALISED TERMS, REMOTELY PILOTED AIRCRAFT (RPA) AND REMOTELY PILOTED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (RPAS), ARE NOW USED AS A SUBSET OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT (UA) AND UAS RESPECTIVELY TO DESCRIBE THE LARGER MORE CAPABLE CLASS III SYSTEMS SUCH AS GLOBAL HAWK, PREDATOR B, AND HERON TP. THE RCAF JOINT UNMANNED SURVEILLANCE AND TARGET ACQUISITION SYSTEM (JUSTAS) PROJECT WILL ALSO PROCURE A CLASS III SYSTEM WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE RPA(S) SUBSET OF UA(S) 

3.	EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY THE CAF WILL ADOPT THE TERMINOLOGY OF RPA(S) FOR NATO CLASS III UA(S). THE TERMS RPA(S) SHALL BE USED WHEN REFERRING TO THE JUSTAS PROJECT. ALL OTHER CURRENT AND PROGRAMMED CLASS I/II WILL CONTINUE TO EMPLOY THE TERMS UA AND UAS. ALL APPLICABLE PUBLICATIONS ARE TO BE AMENDED AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE


----------



## dapaterson

The Term "pilot" is obsolete


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The Term "pilot" is obsolete



So, is this a pilot project?


----------



## TechCrmn

Haha, yea I guess if there were a thread to use the proper terminology for a "drone", it would be this one.

That being said, anyone have any ideas of who will be Remotely Piloting these Aircraft?


----------



## dimsum

TechCrmn said:
			
		

> Haha, yea I guess if there were a thread to use the proper terminology for a "drone", it would be this one.
> 
> That being said, anyone have any ideas of who will be Remotely Piloting these Aircraft?



My guess would be either a Pilot or ACSO, with an AES Op as the sensor operator.  They will be working very closely with some Int Ops (maybe Int Os as well).


----------



## dimsum

> Remotely Piloted Aircraft System Project - List of Qualified Suppliers
> 
> On May 2, 2019 Canada published the Invitation to Qualify (ITQ) W847A-190247/B as the first phase of the procurement process for the Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) Project. Respondents were invited to pre-qualify in order to participate in any subsequent phases of the procurement process including the Review and Refine Requirements (RRR) Phase. Interested suppliers were informed that only Qualified Suppliers would be permitted to participate and bid on any subsequent solicitation issued as part of the procurement process.
> 
> With the completion of the ITQ Phase and in accordance with the ITQ terms, Canada is publishing the list of Qualified Suppliers.
> 
> The Qualified Suppliers (in alphabetical order) are:
> 
> 1. L3 Technologies MAS Inc.
> 2. The United States Government and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.



https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-RPS-002-27338?fbclid=IwAR16ind32vLmKx93hzEa5guHyepGeKqg3nsrvszGD2m8lAsrUX9YML5VmKQ


----------



## Kirkhill

Dimsum - 

I guess that means that GAA and the USG will be offering Predator variants.

But what about L3?  Are they the Canadian supplier for Global Hawk variants?   I gather they supplied/supply the comms suite for some/all the Global Hawks?  Or is there something else other than tactical UAVs in their arsenal?


----------



## MarkOttawa

I suspect the fix may well be in for L3 given all the Quebec connections:


> ISRAELI AND CANADIAN COMPANIES TEAM UP ON BREAKTHROUGH SPY DRONES
> ...
> June 5, 2018 - By ANNA AHRONHEIM - The Jerusalem Post
> 
> Updated June 7, 2018 - more on this story here http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2018/06/07/des-dr...
> 
> Ottawa has been seeking a high-altitude, long-endurance system for surveillance as well as an armed UAV for its deployments abroad.
> 
> Israel Aerospace Industries has partnered with Canada's L3 MAS (Mirabel, Quebec) to offer the state-of-the-art Artemis Unmanned Aerial System for the Royal Canadian Air Force's Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) program, the company announced on Sunday.
> 
> _Based on IAI's Heron TP, the Artemis UAS is a Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) UAS with a proven operational track record. While it is not clear if it will be a weaponized UAS_ [emphasis added], it will be equipped with a wide variety of sensors and other payloads designed specifically to meet Canada's requirements.
> 
> Even though Israel is not a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime – an informal voluntary association of 35 countries which act to limit trade in UAS systems that can deliver Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) – it has agreed to only export strategic weapons systems such as combat UAVs to member countries, such as Canada.
> 
> According to IAI, L3 MAS will be the prime contractor and will be building on its extensive ISS, airworthiness, integrated logistics and program management experience.
> 
> _L3 MAS, which is located in Mirabel, Quebec, will also lead the Artemis Canadian industrial team, including Pratt & Whitney Canada, which will provide the power plant for the UAS, as well as other prominent Canadian partners to be named at a later date_ [emphasis added].
> Read it all https://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Israeli-and-Canadian-companies-team-up-on-breakthrough-spy-drones-559077
> 
> https://www.fliegerfaust.com/l3-pratt-whitney-iai-uav-2575318816.html



Meanwhile looks like Transport Canada may be using drones in Arctic for National Aerial Surveillance Program ( https://www.tc.gc.ca/en/programs-policies/programs/national-aerial-surveillance-program.html ),
https://www.tc.gc.ca/en/programs-policies/programs/national-aerial-surveillance-program/drones-canadian-arctic.html

and maybe ex-Luftwaffe Global Hawk/Euro Hawk:
https://globalnews.ca/news/4979117/canada-high-altitude-surveillance-drone/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Dale Denton

*Team SkyGuardian Canada Looking to Grow*



> OTTAWA – 29 May 2019 – As members of Team SkyGuardian Canada and supporters of the MQ-9B SkyGuardian Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) for Canada’s RPAS Project, L3 WESCAM and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) are integrating WESCAM’s MX™-20 electro-optical and infrared (EO/IR) imaging system onto the SkyGuardian RPAS, as well as the MQ-9 Reaper that is currently being operated by several NATO countries. Team SkyGuardian Canada is a coalition of Canadian companies committed to delivering the best RPAS for Canada.




http://www.ga-asi.com/team-skyguardian-canada-looking-to-grow

http://www.ga-asi.com/ga-asi-integrating-l3-wescams-mx-20-onto-multiple-platforms-as-part-of-team-skyguardian-canada


----------



## tomahawk6

Just buy MQ-9 Reaper and it should do well enforcing the arctic. 

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104470/mq-9-reaper/


----------



## dimsum

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Just buy MQ-9 Reaper and it should do well enforcing the arctic.
> 
> https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104470/mq-9-reaper/



SkyGuardian is the MQ-9B.  Reaper is the MQ-9A.  

Realistically, the Arctic is so big that something more like Global Hawk or Triton is required to cover it.


----------



## tomahawk6

Neither Global Hawk or Triton appear to be armed. I like Reaper as it has seen put an end to many of our enemies. Triton or Global Hawk might put an end to manned surveillance but I hope not.

Reaper Cost:
Unit cost: $64.2 million (includes four aircraft, sensors, GCSs, and Comm.) (fiscal 2006 dollars)


----------



## Kirkhill

Is being armed a major issue in the Arctic?

Satellites aren't armed and yet they are integral to understanding what is going on in the area and allowing for other resources to be deployed in a timely fashion.  Rather than seeing the RPAS systems as unmanned CP-140s don't they also have value if they are nothing more than low-altitude, re-targetable "satellites" that stay on station and provide eyes on the scene?

And with that, does the RPAS service have to be a uniformed service or could it, like the satellite capability, be a civilian service?


----------



## dimsum

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Is being armed a major issue in the Arctic?
> 
> Satellites aren't armed and yet they are integral to understanding what is going on in the area and allowing for other resources to be deployed in a timely fashion.  Rather than seeing the RPAS systems as unmanned CP-140s don't they also have value if they are nothing more than low-altitude, re-targetable "satellites" that stay on station and provide eyes on the scene?
> 
> And with that, does the RPAS service have to be a uniformed service or could it, like the satellite capability, be a civilian service?



Good point, and that's why I see both armed and unarmed RPAS being useful.  

If unarmed and only for domestic patrols (or within our EEZ at least), then there's really no difference whether uniformed services fly it or not - like what Transport Canada does with the Dash-7 and Dash-8s with the NASP.  If it becomes an expeditionary capability and/or armed then I believe the armed forces (RCAF for large ones, Army/Navy for smaller ones) should fly it.


----------



## Kirkhill

I agree entirely on the expeditionary force being a uniformed service (RCAF most probably).

I suppose the question becomes: Can we afford two fleets?  One for domestic service and one for overseas duties.

Conversely, do we have to afford two fleets if the requirements of the expeditionary force and the domestic force are just too dissimilar?

In the past we have justified buying equipment necessary for expeditionary service on the basis that we can shoe-horn it into a domestic role.  In other instances we have bought kit for domestic roles and then made do with it on expedition.


----------



## Kirkhill

Just as  ;D a reminder of what we are up against -







75% of the population in 2006 lived in the red areas of the cities.
24% of the population lived in the adjacent rural areas
1% of our 30,000,000 - or 300,000 people - lived in the rest of the country.

In addition we have our EEZ and Continental Shelf areas






And, further, we have our International Fisheries Organization and SAR responsibilities






15,540,000 km2 to survey and patrol and cover.

As a good, international, citizen, laying claim to all of that surface, we should, at least, be able to monitor what is going on in our claim.


----------



## MarkOttawa

RADARSAT Constellation is to help with all that monitoring, esp. up north:



> Radarsat Constellation aims to launch Wednesday [June 12]
> ...
> The $1-billion Radarsat Constellation Mission (RCM) will be similar in some ways to Radarsats -1 and -2, but with three satellites spaced at equal distances around the globe it will be able to go more places and provide more pictures, faster.
> 
> (All the Radarsats orbit almost from pole to pole while the Earth rotates under them. This gives coverage of the whole planet. They will be about 600 kilometres above Earth.)
> 
> “One of the main applications for Radarsat data is for surveillance,” he noted. Canada, especially National Defence, wants to keep track of what ships are approaching our coast or going through the Northwest Passage.
> 
> The satellites will also have information from transponders on ships, which will tell which ships are identifying themselves and which are incognito.
> 
> Radarsat technology is also very good at mapping sea ice and determining how dangerous a particular ice area is, valuable information for ship captains...
> https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/radarsat-constellation-aims-to-launch-wednesday



Earlier:



> RADARSAT Constellation: New Canadian Satellites and Maritime, Arctic Surveillance, Part 2
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/20/mark-collins-radarsat-constellation-new-canadian-satellites-and-maritime-arctic-surveillance-part-2/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

Dimsum said:
			
		

> SkyGuardian is the MQ-9B.  Reaper is the MQ-9A.
> 
> Realistically, the Arctic is so big that something more like Global Hawk or Triton is required to cover it.



It was my understanding that the MQ-9B has some pretty significant endurance and range improvements compared to the MQ-9A.  Not that I'm comparing them to the Global Hawk which seems to be an entirely different class of RPA.


----------



## MarkOttawa

As for Global Hawk, Transport Canada may be a player:



> Transport Canada looking at used German drone to patrol Arctic
> 
> A used German drone is one of a handful of aircraft under consideration by Transport Canada for its long-delayed Arctic surveillance program.
> 
> A spokeswoman for the department said no decision has been made about the kind of remotely-piloted system the department will purchase.
> 
> Marie-Anyk Cote said the plan is to buy an aircraft to detect and monitor oil spills, survey ice levels and marine habitats and keep track of shipping and ice movement in Canada's far northern waters.
> 
> "As part of its technical assessment, the government sought information from suppliers to better understand the technology and the solutions available," Cote said in an email.
> 
> The Associated Press reported on Monday that Canada was negotiating with Germany to purchase a secondhand Global Hawk surveillance drone, which originally cost the Germans $823 million.
> 'Premature'
> 
> Cote said "it is still premature to speculate which remotely piloted aircraft system will be purchased" and that the evaluation is still underway.
> 
> In a statement issued to AP, Germany's defence ministry said talks with Canada were planned, but declined to comment on a possible sale price or closure date.
> 
> The news surfaced in a response to lawmakers tabled by the German government in the Bundestag, Germany's parliament. It stated that Germany has decided to "begin concrete negotiations with Canada for the sale of the Euro Hawk aircraft, two ground stations and possibly certain spare parts."
> 
> Northrop Grumman, the maker of the Global Hawk, pitched the Canadian military on buying the high-altitude surveillance system a few years ago...
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/drone-arctic-transport-canada-1.4838364



Would be for National Aerial Surveillance Program (note also aircraft involved):
http://www.tc.gc.ca/en/programs-policies/programs/national-aerial-surveillance-program.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:
			
		

> It was my understanding that the MQ-9B has some pretty significant endurance and range improvements compared to the MQ-9A.  Not that I'm comparing them to the Global Hawk which seems to be an entirely different class of RPA.



Yes, and yes.  If GA's numbers are to be believed then the MQ-9B has 1.5x the endurance and payload of the MQ-9A.  The MQ-9B's big improvements would be that it's compliant with civilian air traffic, which is huge if you want to operate in domestic airspaces, and potentially anti-ice/de-ice which is important in Canada.

The Global Hawk/Triton is an entirely different class of RPA - High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) v. MQ-9's Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE).  Basically, flying at 50-60kft v 20-30kft.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well thankfully with our current relations with China, we are unlikely to buy 2nd hand Chinese CH-4B UAV's from Jordan  https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a27926078/predator-drone-chinese/?utm_campaign=socialflowFBPOP&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social-media&fbclid=IwAR23F2Iv_082RghGT3TIEMXH5ryWQng2iyl30II7KQFq6fOMe4bLzv0xufY


----------



## MarkOttawa

Molasses-speed, some sunny day:



> RPAS to Detect, Identify and Track [and kill some] Targets
> 
> Through Initiatives 50 and 91 of Strong, Secure, Engaged, Canada is looking at acquiring Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) capability to perform precision strikes to support Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) domestic and international operations.
> 
> In May this year, Canada invited potential suppliers to submit their proposals. L3 Technologies MAS Inc. and the United States Government and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. are the two qualified suppliers who will go on to the next phase of the procurement process and be invited to submit bids for this project.
> 
> A contract is expected to be awarded in 2022/23 with the first delivery slated for 2024/25.
> 
> Vanguard recently spoke with Major Jason Furlong, Project Director for the RPAS Project. Maj Furlong is a CP-140 Aurora Air Combat Systems Officer with the Royal Canadian Air Force. A graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada, his 27 years of service have seen him serve all over Canada, and exchange tours with the Royal Air Force and the US Navy where he flew the Nimrod and P-8A Poseidon respectively.
> 
> *Maj Furlong, it’s no secret that it has taken the Canadian Armed Forces a long time – over a decade – to convince the Government of Canada to acquire armed drones. Attempts were made starting back in 2006, which finally bore fruit in 2017 by being included in Strong, Secure, Engaged. Can you shed some light as to this delay and what has changed to cause a push for RPAS now?*
> 
> Canada’s defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE), set an objective to reinforce relations with key partners and respond to conflicts and crises abroad, including support for peace and stability operations. Based on SSE direction, as noted in initiatives 50 and 91, the release for the request for proposal (RFP) for a remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS) is planned for the 2020-2021 fiscal year. In order to meet this timeline, an invitation to qualify was published and resulted in a list of qualified suppliers in May 2019...
> 
> Canada’s operating environment represents some of the most challenging conditions for the successful operation of such a system. Recent technological advances have shaped available systems to the point where they align with RCAF requirements and justify such an investment.
> 
> The aim of the Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) Project is to procure a new fleet of armed medium-altitude, long-endurance (MALE) remotely piloted aircraft and related equipment capable of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and precision strikes in support of Canadian Armed Forces operations.
> 
> The system will multiply the effectiveness of our deployed forces and will complement existing platforms within the CAF. As a truly joint asset, the system will modernize our capabilities and bring us in line with our allies to better operate in coalition environments.
> 
> Furthermore, the RPAS can be employed domestically to augment the efforts underway for maritime domain awareness by monitoring our vast maritime approaches, including the Arctic. The breadth of the RPAS capability is such that it is able to support all eight of the core CAF missions outlined in SSE...
> 
> *Operating RPAS in Canada’s Arctic, especially with the lack of access to bandwidth in the high Arctic and severe weather conditions will be quite challenging. How do you plan to combat these challenges?*
> 
> Advancements in a variety of new commercial communications systems and managed bandwidth show promise to enable operations in high-latitude regions. Other projects directed by RCAF will serve to enhance RPAS and other capabilities, which are required to operate in the Arctic.
> 
> For example, Strong, Secure, Engaged Initiative 85 calls for the development of a satellite communications constellation that will deliver Arctic communications infrastructure. The Enhanced Satellite Communication Project – Polar (ESCP-P) will provide the CAF with narrowband and wideband satellite communications (SATCOM), essential for beyond line of site (BLOS) communications over the Arctic and the rest of the Canadian area of responsibility (AOR). The _project will be developed in parallel with RPAS, and both are scheduled to achieve Full Operational Capability within the next 12 years_ [emphasis added, more molasses]...
> https://vanguardcanada.com/2019/11/18/rpas-to-detect-identify-and-track-targets/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I'm not even throwing my hat in the 'interested in the Payload Op positions' hat, else I get sucked over to some basement office in a forgotten building waiting for tails and missions.  Actually, I find this embarrassing for our military.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'm not even throwing my hat in the 'interested in the Payload Op positions' hat, else I get sucked over to some basement office in a forgotten building waiting for tails and missions.  Actually, I find this embarrassing for our military.



It's very embarrassing.  We had RPAs a decade ago, just like we had Kiowas with Data Downlink at Oka  8)

Going backwards with forward momentum  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Going backwards with forward momentum  ;D


Another t-shirt right there.


----------



## Good2Golf

It’s embarrassing until you accept the fact the Govt deliberately throttles major activities like JUSTAS/RPAS and only lets them move forward when:
a) they want it to move forward to advance a higher-than-defence priority, or
b) the long drawn out situation becomes politically untenable (ie. risk to the incumbent political party losing an element of control over their ongoing destiny that would endanger their continued control of Government).

Note that military capability requirement factors neither in a) nor b).

#realityofdefenceincanada

[/pers opinion]

Regards
G2G


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Not sure if this has been previously or in another thread. If it has my apologies. Back on 01 May 2019 the Canadian government issued its "Invitation to Qualify for the Procurement Process for the Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) Project." The document can be found here. 

A couple interesting facts are contained in the document:



> 1.1   Definitions. The following definitions apply for the purpose of this procurement:
> 
> a) “Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE)” means a remotely piloted aircraft over 600 kilograms capable of flying above 18,000 feet and operating beyond line of sight





> 1.3   Overview of the Project and the Competition Scope
> 
> a) Overview of Project:
> 
> i)  The Project will provide Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) information and deliver precision strike effects to Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) commanders. The Project’s medium-altitude, long-endurance ISTAR and precision strike capabilities will be integrated as part of a networked, joint system-of-systems, in support of the Strong, Secure, Engaged(SSE) Defence Policy strategic vision and primary missions.
> 
> ii) In June 2017, the Government of Canada (GC) articulated plans in the new SSE Defence Policy to ensure that the CAF remains a multi-role, combat-capable defence force at home and abroad. The Project will procure an armed MALE RPAS capability to deliver on SSE initiatives 50 and 91, as well as support six other SSE initiatives.



...........



> iv) At this time, Canada expects the RPAS requirements to include the following:
> 
> A.   Ability to conduct sustained operations worldwide.
> 
> B.   Provision of services and data to, and acceptance of services and data with allied combined joint forces, including the sharing of intelligence data with Five-Eyes nations.
> 
> C.   Ability to dynamically control the Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) and payloads, in near-real time, using beyond line of sight (BLOS) data links.
> 
> D.   Ability to carry and employ multiple precision-guided munitions of up to 500 lbs as well as enable target acquisition for third party targeting.
> 
> E.   Being deployable, operable, and sustainable worldwide in known medium threat environments and be able to meet Canada’s military airworthiness regulations.


----------



## jeffb

That sounds a lot like Reaper...


----------



## kev994

There’s a Heron similar to the Reaper that I’m pretty sure meets those requirements.


----------



## jeffb

I believe you are right. 

https://www.iai.co.il/p/heron-tp


----------



## Retired AF Guy

The only two UAVs that I could find that match the above specifications are the Reaper and the Heron.


----------



## dapaterson

Five Eyes data sharing present challenges with Israeli equipment.


----------



## Underway

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Five Eyes data sharing present challenges with Israeli equipment.



It does, but there are ways around that.  The bidder, lets call them Hocklead Nartim.  They bid the Heron.  They send their engineers/techs to Israel to learn everything there is to learn about the Heron.  Canada receives the equipment, and have Hocklead Nartim install the 5 eyes stuff needed.  Their engineers/techs are allowed to both touch 5 eyes material and repair/work on the Heron as they are qualified by the Heron suppliers.  

We've done this exact thing before with 5 the eyes problems.


----------



## dapaterson

True, but that adds integration and timeline risk.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Five Eyes data sharing present challenges with Israeli equipment.



Not impossible to overcome.  A number of FVEYs nations in fact go as far as to use Israeli EW equipment (that can be identified through publicly releasable/available information).  Israeli equipment can be pretty good...and in many cases worth working to resolve the challenges.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## dapaterson

Well, since the last smart RCAF officer left C Prog...


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Well, since the last smart RCAF officer left C Prog...



It's up to PSPC and TB to decide?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Not sure if this has been previously or in another thread. If it has my apologies. Back on 01 May 2019 the Canadian government issued its "Invitation to Qualify for the Procurement Process for the Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) Project." The document can be found here.
> 
> A couple interesting facts are contained in the document:
> 
> ...........



Wikipedia now lists the General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper, designated CU-163 is in Canadian service: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Air_Force#Rotary_wing

I believe this is incorrect data.  Anybody here a wikipedia editor?


----------



## dimsum

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Wikipedia now lists the General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper, designated CU-163 is in Canadian service: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Air_Force#Rotary_wing
> 
> I believe this is incorrect data.  Anybody here a wikipedia editor?



The CU-163 was the Altair, which was a version of the Reaper tested in 2004. 

http://www.ga.com/altair-unmanned-aircraft-to-deploy-to-canada


----------



## MarkOttawa

Very interesting--Luftwaffe abandoning MQ-4C for Bombardier Global 6000:



> Germany walks away from $2.5 billion purchase of US Navy’s Triton spy drones
> 
> The German government has canceled plans to buy Northrop Grumman-made Triton drones to the tune of $2.5 billion, opting instead for manned planes carrying eavesdropping sensors.
> 
> The _decision to buy Bombardier Global 6000 aircraft comes after officials became convinced that the Global Hawk derivatives would be unable to meet the safety standards needed for flying through European airspace by 2025, a target date for Berlin’s NATO obligations_ [emphasis added].
> 
> A defense ministry spokeswoman told Defense News the Triton option had grown “significantly more expensive” compared with earlier planning assumptions.
> 
> The U.S. State Department in April 2018 cleared Germany’s request to purchase four MQ-4C Triton drones for signals intelligence missions under the country’s PEGASUS program, short for “Persistent German Airborne Surveillance System.” The program includes a sensor, dubbed “ISIS-ZB” and made by Hensoldt, for intercepting communications and locating targets by their electromagnetic signature.
> 
> The German Defence Ministry for years had been banking on the Triton purchase to come with a pre-installed safety-technology package that would be easily approved by European air traffic authorities. But officials saw their hopes dashed as Italy recently issued a military-type certificate for a sister drone — NATO’s Alliance Ground Surveillance fleet of Global Hawks, stationed in Sigonella, Sicily — that prescribes tight restrictions on flights over the continent.
> 
> Manned aircraft like the envisioned Global 6000 are allowed to routinely fly alongside civilian traffic, a prospect that the Germans see as more palatable than dealing with drone-specific airspace corridors.
> 
> _Berlin hopes to catch the tail end of Bombardier’s Global 6000 manufacturing run, as the model is being phased out in favor of an upgrade. While that strategy could yield a better price, Berlin needs to move soon before the production line goes cold_ [emphasis added], according to officials...
> https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2020/01/28/germany-walks-away-from-25-billion-purchase-of-us-navys-triton-spy-drones/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Gorgo

Well, Bombardier and Canada benefits from that, of course.


----------



## Spencer100

There won't be a Bombardier in very near future.


----------



## Ping Monkey

Interesting article (_authored by General Atomics_):  Establishing a Persistent Presence: The Value of Versatile and Affordable UAVs in the Arctic

https://www.defensenews.com/native/general-atomics/2020/05/12/establishing-a-persistent-presence-the-value-of-versatile-and-affordable-uavs-in-the-arctic/


----------



## Dale Denton

Just realized this threat is 13 years old...



Not the Heron, but proof of concept.

*Elbit adds life-saving capability to Hermes 900*

https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/elbit-adds-life-saving-capability-to-hermes-900/138263.article



> Elbit Systems has added a life-saving capability to the maritime patrol version of its Hermes 900, equipping the unmanned air vehicle (UAV) with four six-person life rafts that can be dropped to survivors.
> 
> The Israeli company has delivered an example to an undisclosed customer in South-East Asia, and believes the latest feature could give its UAV an edge over manned aircraft in search and rescue contests, including the UK%u2019s upcoming SAR-2G %u2013 or second generation %u2013 requirement.
> 
> %u201CAdverse weather and short endurance significantly degrade the SAR capabilities of manned aircraft, often preventing them from executing their life-saving missions,%u201D says the manufacturer. However, the Hermes 900 can fly continuously for more than 24h in %u201Cadverse conditions day and night%u201D.
> 
> Elbit says the aircraft%u2019s onboard radar and electro-optical/infrared sensor can visually identify survivors and calculate the best drop-point, enabling the rafts to be dispatched from as low as 600ft to a point a safe distance from those in the sea.


----------



## dimsum

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> *Elbit adds life-saving capability to Hermes 900*



There is no way the Hermes 900 is flying 24h with a pod like that.


----------



## kev994

Dimsum said:
			
		

> There is no way the Hermes 900 is flying 24h with a pod like that.


I suspect it can fly 24 hours OR carry the pod, but not both.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Transport Canada gets its own drone before RCAF's never never program does:



> Canada buys Israeli drone for Arctic maritime surveillance
> 
> *Ottawa will shell out more than $36 million to purchase an advanced Israeli drone to help the federal government keep an eye on the growing maritime activity in Canada’s Arctic, federal officials announced Monday *[Dec. 21].
> 
> In a joint statement, Minister of Public Services and Procurement Anita Anand and Transport Minister Marc Garneau, said the contract with Elbit Systems Ltd. for the acquisition of a Hermes 900 StarLiner remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS) was awarded through an “open, transparent and competitive procurement process.”
> 
> The federal government has also engaged in consultations with Indigenous groups in Canada’s North, where the drone will operate, officials said.
> 
> The Hermes 900 StarLiner, a civilian version of Elbit’s medium-altitude long-endurance military drones, will join Transport Canada National Aerial Surveillance Program aircraft fleet [see: https://tc.canada.ca/en/programs/national-aerial-surveillance-program ]. It is expected to be delivered by December 2022.
> 
> According to federal officials, the Hermes 900 StarLiner is capable of operations of up to 72 degrees north latitude and has a range of more than 1,400 nautical miles. It comes equipped with back-up command and control and navigation systems, electrical optical infrared camera, synthetic aperture radar and mapping camera system.
> 
> The drone is controlled from a remote location and also includes autopilot capabilities, such as automatic takeoff and landing.
> 
> Transport Canada plans to use it to detect oil spills, survey ice and marine habitats, and monitor activity on the ocean in Canada’s Arctic, officials said.
> 
> The aircraft is fully certified to operate in civilian airspace, and will take-off and land in civilian airfields.
> 
> In addition to the drone itself, the $36.16‑million contract includes communication links, ground control stations, sensor packages, training and the optional purchase of spare parts.
> 
> “Canada is committed to protecting our endangered species and our marine environment,” Garneau said in a statement.
> 
> Integrating remotely piloted aircraft into Transport Canada’s fleet will make federal surveillance operations more robust than ever, he added.
> 
> “The National Aerial Surveillance Program also helps with search and rescue, humanitarian efforts, illegal fishing enforcement, and the development and regulation of Canada’s drone industry,” Garneau said.
> 
> *Limited options for maritime surveillance drones*
> 
> Experts welcomed the announcement.
> 
> Timothy Choi, a maritime strategy expert and Fellow of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said the federal government was facing a limited choice when it went shopping for this new capability.
> 
> “Large maritime surveillance drones – that is, ones equipped with downward-looking radar and AIS receivers to detect shipping – have not been as prevalent in the global drone market as their land-centric counterparts,” Choi said. “Of these, there are even fewer that have been tested in Arctic conditions.”
> 
> The model that Canada is acquiring has, however, been undergoing operational trials in Iceland via the European Maritime Safety Agency ever since summer 2019, Choi said.
> 
> In September 2020, the same model was also selected for demonstration for the UK’s coast guard.
> 
> The Hermes 900 StarLiner is also significantly cheaper than the used Euro Hawk drone Canada tried to buy from Germany last year, Choi said.
> 
> “Operationally, the new drone will greatly help ‘connect the dots’ when it comes to surveilling Arctic waters and enforcing Canadian regulations,” Choi said.
> 
> “While our RadarSat satellites can and do detect oil spills, their brief visits over the Arctic make it difficult to identify the exact nature of the oil spill or its origins: the ability of a drone to loiter for long periods of time with higher-resolution sensors will help fill this gap.”
> 
> Those same sensors, which are required to be able to discern details as minute as fishing nets on ships, will collect valuable evidence to document any activities such as illegal dumping and fishing, Choi said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Employees check an Elbit Systems Ltd. Hermes 900 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) at the company’s drone factory in Rehovot, Israel, June 28, 2018. (Orel Cohen/REUTERS)_
> https://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/2020/12/22/canada-buys-israeli-drone-for-arctic-maritime-surveillance/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dimsum

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Transport Canada gets its own drone before RCAF's never never program does:



Yes, but for a different mission and without a lot of the RCAF's requirements (armament, international operations, classified networks, interoperability with other services/nations, etc).  So it's kind of like judging apples to oranges.  

I'd like to know where they want to deploy them from.  I'd assume that Yellowknife and Iqaluit, maybe also Whitehorse, would be the main areas.  Also, is 1400nm one-way or "combat radius"?  It makes more sense to judge RPAS based on endurance rather than range, because theoretically with the right SATCOM network, the range is unlimited - fuel and SATCOM connectivity at the poles is the issue.  

Finally, it says it can operate up to 72N, which is just beyond the NW Passage.  What SATCOM system are they using to guarantee that connectivity?  How about the tons of land/water north of that?  

To be clear - I am not bashing this.  It's awesome that TC is getting another tool in the toolbox, but I'd caution that there are still lots to work out (especially how to regulate RPAS in domestic and international airspace) before it actually gets operational.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Yes, but for a different mission and without a lot of the RCAF's requirements (armament, international operations, classified networks, interoperability with other services/nations, etc).  So it's kind of like judging apples to oranges.
> 
> I'd like to know where they want to deploy them from.  I'd assume that Yellowknife and Iqaluit, maybe also Whitehorse, would be the main areas.  Also, is 1400nm one-way or "combat radius"?  It makes more sense to judge RPAS based on endurance rather than range, because theoretically with the right SATCOM network, the range is unlimited - fuel and SATCOM connectivity at the poles is the issue.
> 
> Finally, it says it can operate up to 72N, which is just beyond the NW Passage.  What SATCOM system are they using to guarantee that connectivity?  How about the tons of land/water north of that?
> 
> To be clear - I am not bashing this.  It's awesome that TC is getting another tool in the toolbox, but I'd caution that there are still lots to work out (especially how to regulate RPAS in domestic and international airspace) before it actually gets operational.



And the weather up there is a little challenging too, I would say  :nod:


----------



## Dale Denton

I know it's different, but that was fast...

*Transport Canada to acquire a remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS) from Elbit Systems*





__





						Transport Canada to acquire a remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS) from Elbit Systems – Vanguard
					






					vanguardcanada.com
				






> “Transport Canada’s National Aerial Surveillance Program is an essential piece of the Government of Canada’s efforts to keep Canada’s coasts and inland waters safe and clean,” said Anita Anand, Minister of Public Services and Procurement.“This investment will help to enhance the security and surveillance capacity under the program, leading to a cleaner and safer environment.”
> 
> The Hermes 900 StarLiner RPAS is expected to be delivered by December 2022. This aircraft system is controlled from a remote location and has autopilot capabilities for automatic takeoff and landing. The RPAS has a flying range of more than 1,400 nautical miles with the capability of operating beyond the visual line of sight and capable of operations to 72 degrees north latitude. This will help to detect oil spills, survey ice and marine habitats, and monitor activity on the ocean in Canada’s Arctic.


----------



## MilEME09

Calgary companies seeking to win multi-billion dollar Canadian military bid for drone procurement
					

Three Calgary-based companies are part of a larger team that has been selected as one of two qualified bidders for a Canadian aerospace military contract worth…




					calgarysun.com
				




Chances are high the contract could go to a calgary based group.


----------



## dimsum

Looks like the aircrew for these will be in Ottawa.



> “We have not finalized the basing locations, but there certainly will be a centralized ground control node in Ottawa,” Meinzinger said.
> 
> “And we will have an east and a west maintenance detachment where we will locate vehicles, air vehicles and launch and recovery teams. And then we'll have one northern base, which will be used when it's necessary to be used.”
> 
> The entire drone force will comprise about 300 service members, he added, with technicians, pilots and others drawn from the air force and other parts of the military. The exact make-up of that force, and even how many drones will purchased, remains a work in progress.











						Canadian military laying groundwork for arrival of armed drones
					

Canada is inching closer to the purchase of armed drones for its military as details around how the controversial weapons will be used are starting to come together after nearly two decades of delays and discussion.



					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## lenaitch

Is there an operational logic for controlling them from Ottawa?  I would think an actual operational location would make more sense.

And from the 'colour me shocked department', the NDP is against them:









						NDP doesn't support military purchase of armed drones
					

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says Canada's military should be focused on peacekeeping and he doesn't back a plan for the Canadian Armed Forces to buy military drones. The federal government is planning to launch a formal bidding contest to buy such drones this fall.




					ca.news.yahoo.com


----------



## kev994

lenaitch said:


> Is there an operational logic for controlling them from Ottawa?  I would think an actual operational location would make more sense.


According to Wikipedia the Heron had COMINT stuff in it, so maybe it’s advantageous to have it near a COMINT unit?


----------



## dapaterson

lenaitch said:


> Is there an operational logic for controlling them from Ottawa?  I would think an actual operational location would make more sense.


The US operates UAVs from Vegas. As long as you're in satellite range, physical location is irrelevant from a purely physical perspective.


----------



## dimsum

lenaitch said:


> Is there an operational logic for controlling them from Ottawa?  I would think an actual operational location would make more sense.


Close to the decision-makers.


----------



## Underway

lenaitch said:


> Is there an operational logic for controlling them from Ottawa?  I would think an actual operational location would make more sense.


As @dimsum pointed out closer to where their information will have an impact.  These are not tactical assets, they are strategic ones, and strategic decisions are usually made from Ottawa.  I suspect Ottawa has the pre-exisiting infrastructure to support the farm needed to fly them once they are purchased.   The location basing will vary.


----------



## Infanteer

lenaitch said:


> Is there an operational logic for controlling them from Ottawa?  I would think an actual operational location would make more sense.


The platform is not "theatre specific" in that you could fly it from one theatre to another theatre, supporting various missions.  So shipping control stations to a theatre location where it may not even be used doesn't make much sense.  Some sort of control station near CJOC and CANSOFCOM's operating centres make sense.


----------



## CBH99

lenaitch said:


> Is there an operational logic for controlling them from Ottawa?  I would think an actual operational location would make more sense.
> 
> And from the 'colour me shocked department', the NDP is against them:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NDP doesn't support military purchase of armed drones
> 
> 
> NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says Canada's military should be focused on peacekeeping and he doesn't back a plan for the Canadian Armed Forces to buy military drones. The federal government is planning to launch a formal bidding contest to buy such drones this fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ca.news.yahoo.com


The NDP is the same party who ACTUALLY brought forth a motion to debate whether they should disband the entire armed forces, at their last meeting.

On the grounds that 'the world is safer and no longer needing militaries, many other countries are also disbanding their militaries, and bad guys won't do bad things if we change the wording on one of our foreign policies.'


My goodness...  not to get political.  But between the Liberals doing their woke, snobby nonsense.  The NDP being like your super friendly neighbour who is retired, very nice, tends to her garden, and is always high, the PQ (which as an Alberta guy, doesn't exist) - and the Conservatives having a leader that most Canadians couldn't point out in a group photo...  🤦


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> The NDP is the same party who ACTUALLY brought forth a motion to debate whether they should disband the entire armed forces, at their last meeting.


I thought it was just a motion that some random NDP member asked, and they specifically said they weren't going to discuss?


----------



## CBH99

Oh, looks like you are right.

I was under the impression that it was being brought forward as a motion for them to debate at their meeting, by one of their MP's.  I hadn't heard of the follow-up.


My bad


----------



## Eye In The Sky

_At the same time, preparations are underway so the military is ready to begin using the unmanned aerial vehicles when they start to arrive in the next three to four years. That includes plans to establish a central hub in Ottawa where pilots will fly the drones._


----------



## lenaitch

dimsum said:


> Close to the decision-makers.



I will assume you meant that as a good thing.


----------



## Loachman

dapaterson said:


> The US operates UAVs from Vegas. As long as you're in satellite range, physical location is irrelevant from a purely physical perspective.


They operated them from KAF as well, as engaging moving targets via satellite link doesn't work very well because of the two-way signal delay.

Very nice GCS, too. Much, much, much better than what we had,


----------



## dimsum

Loachman said:


> They operated them from KAF as well, as engaging moving targets via satellite link doesn't work very well because of the two-way signal delay.
> 
> Very nice GCS, too. Much, much, much better than what we had,


By the time I was there, they definitely did not do that anymore.  Missions were run out of Vegas, landings and takeoffs out of KAF.

From what I've read, the latest generations of RPAS don't even need the local landing/takeoff crews - everything now run from one place in the world.


----------



## NavyShooter




----------



## Gorgo

If they're going to hook in head-mounted VR control tech to the UAV controls, I can seriously see this happening.


----------



## dimsum

Gorgo said:


> If they're going to hook in head-mounted VR control tech to the UAV controls, I can seriously see this happening.


Or even manned aircraft.









						The Air Force's Virtual Reality Fighter Training Is Working Best for 5th-Gen Pilots
					

The Air Force is finding that virtual reality fighter pilot training is working best for students who want to fly the  most advanced stealth platforms.




					www.military.com


----------



## Fabius

Our CAOC is in Winnipeg though. All our airspace operations are controlled from there as far as I know. 
Why not locate the GCS there? Makes more sense than Ottawa. 

Having a GCS close to Ottawa because that’s where decisions ultimately are made is pure nonsense in today’s age of fibre optic and sat  data transfer and comms.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Fabius said:


> Our CAOC is in Winnipeg though. All our airspace operations are controlled from there as far as I know.
> Why not locate the GCS there? Makes more sense than Ottawa.
> 
> Having a GCS close to Ottawa because that’s where decisions ultimately are made is pure nonsense in today’s age of fibre optic and sat  data transfer and comms.


Not too many people will sign up for this job if it’s in Winnipeg.  It could literally be anywhere.  Put it somewhere where it is attractive for people to live.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:


> Not too many people will sign up for this job if it’s in Winnipeg.  It could literally be anywhere.  Put it somewhere where it is attractive for people to live.


Compared to Cold Lake, Winnipeg is attractive (I would also happily live in Cold Lake. I am that kind of guy…)


----------



## CBH99

Where would the ideal place be, and why?

Does the GCS need to be located at an already existing airbase?  (I am guessing not since Ottawa is a suggested option.)


 (Curious to hear various opinions from those still in, or those with experience)


----------



## kev994

CBH99 said:


> Where would the ideal place be, and why?
> 
> Does the GCS need to be located at an already existing airbase?  (I am guessing not since Ottawa is a suggested option.)
> 
> 
> (Curious to hear various opinions from those still in, or those with experience)


In Kandahar it was literally at the side of the runway. Decisions were made on the other side of the base. It can be annoying to have the decision makers in the flight deck, so somewhere far enough that people aren’t constantly dropping in would be great.


----------



## Ostrozac

SupersonicMax said:


> Not too many people will sign up for this job if it’s in Winnipeg.  It could literally be anywhere.  Put it somewhere where it is attractive for people to live.


The entire CAF are approaching the point where this question does indeed to be asked for every new capability, as well as many existing capabilities. Now I’m not saying that Winnipeg‘s a perfect city, but it is considerably more affordable than Ottawa.

The institution doesn’t want to deal with this question — see the mismanagement of the PLD file and the stillbirth of ’The Journey’. But we are going to be forced to deal with this by demographics and economics. If we have large bases in places where Privates and Corporals cannot afford to live, they will quit and/or not join in the first place.

But if Winnipeg is too crime ridden and Ottawa too expensive — what bases do we have left that are legitimate candidates for expansion? I took a look at a list of the 20 most affordable cities in Canada, and the only one of those cities that has a major CAF facility is St Jean, Quebec. 

Is that the answer? Operating UAVs out of the Mega seems properly futuristic and maybe we can move our recruit training somewhere with fresh air.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Ostrozac said:


> The entire CAF are approaching the point where this question does indeed to be asked for every new capability, as well as many existing capabilities. Now I’m not saying that Winnipeg‘s a perfect city, but it is considerably more affordable than Ottawa.
> 
> The institution doesn’t want to deal with this question — see the mismanagement of the PLD file and the stillbirth of ’The Journey’. But we are going to be forced to deal with this by demographics and economics. If we have large bases in places where Privates and Corporals cannot afford to live, they will quit and/or not join in the first place.
> 
> But if Winnipeg is too crime ridden and Ottawa too expensive — what bases do we have left that are legitimate candidates for expansion? I took a look at a list of the 20 most affordable cities in Canada, and the only one of those cities that has a major CAF facility is St Jean, Quebec.
> 
> Is that the answer? Operating UAVs out of the Mega seems properly futuristic and maybe we can move our recruit training somewhere with fresh air.


Why do you need to constrain yourself to an Air Force base or a base at all?


----------



## Ostrozac

SupersonicMax said:


> Why do you need to constrain yourself to an Air Force base or a base at all?


That’s a fair point. So long as there’s sufficient power and bandwidth, an office park could be bought, and an RCAF flag flown in front. And now we have 23 Wing — or CFS Brockville/Sarnia/Prince George... I’m open to suggestions on location.


----------



## dapaterson

There are advantages to co-location - ability to post to a new job without a change of geolocation.  Yet another tiny CAF det where you're going to be moving lots of people in and out doesn't act in the best interest of the institution to retain talent.


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:


> There are advantages to co-location - ability to post to a new job without a change of geolocation.  Yet another tiny CAF det where you're going to be moving lots of people in and out doesn't act in the best interest of the institution to retain talent.


That works great in Cold Lake.  I can guarantee you that a Hornet det close to a big city would be a huge satisfier.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:


> That works great in Cold Lake.  I can guarantee you that a Hornet det close to a big city would be a huge satisfier.


Mirabel? Edmonton?


----------



## SupersonicMax

Comox and Montreal/Mirabel seems to be the preferred hypothetical locations.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:


> Comox and Montreal/Mirabel seems to be the preferred hypothetical locations.


Comox would not help much with  affordability.


----------



## SupersonicMax

SeaKingTacco said:


> Comox would not help much with  affordability.


No but if people can anchor there, it is less of an issue. Most people leaving Cold Lake for Comox are happy, regardless of their living arrangements in Comox.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:


> No but if people can anchor there, it is less of an issue. Most people leaving Cold Lake for Comox are happy, regardless of their living arrangements in Comox.


Interesting. Thanks for that.


----------



## Zoomie

Maybe Ottawa for GCS since that’s where our Expeditionary HQ is located?  Also all PED facilities are there too?


----------



## CBH99

dapaterson said:


> There are advantages to co-location - ability to post to a new job without a change of geolocation.  Yet another tiny CAF det where you're going to be moving lots of people in and out doesn't act in the best interest of the institution to retain talent.


The flip side of that coin though, is that it can easily be in the best interest of the institution to retain talent.  Looking at CFB Edmonton for example - a big base with plenty of jobs/trades/units.  Vibrant city with lots going on, great employment opportunities for a spouse and educational opportunities for the kids/teens, etc.

It isn't as affordable as it was even a few years ago, but our real estate market is in desperate need of a correction.  (As are plenty of other places in Canada, it would seem.)  Still, it isn't anywhere near as expensive as plenty of other places, and rent is decently reasonable.


I don't imagine we will be moving lots of people in and out for the UAV trade, especially if we are just talking the GCS's.  It will be a fairly small and closed community regardless, given it's size - but moving them somewhere with opportunities for the entire family will do more to retain members than moving them somewhere fairly isolated and boring.  

0.02


----------



## dapaterson

What UAV Trade?

UAVs will be flown by pilots, with AESOps and possibly ACSOs colocated.

The actual airframes can be based anywhere, and will have the usual support folks - a token AERE officer who pretends they are in charge, with Air Maint Supervisors to keep the AVN, ACS and Air Weapons folks doing their jobs (plus the supply folks to keep the parts flowing).

And a metric shit ton of Int Os and Int Ops to actually leverage the tremendous streams of data that yet another platform with a wide array of sensors will generate.


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:


> What UAV Trade?
> 
> UAVs will be flown by pilots, with AESOps and possibly ACSOs colocated.


That is not a certainty yet.


----------



## dapaterson

Until air regulations are significantly changed, I don't see and medium/large UAS operating in Canadian airspace without a pilot at the (remote) controls.

Of course, there may be options to accept lower medical standards for a UAS pilot than, say, a CF-18 pilot, as the environmental concerns are significantly less (no G-force, no O2 mask etc)...


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:


> Until air regulations are significantly changed, I don't see and medium/large UAS operating in Canadian airspace without a pilot at the (remote) controls.
> 
> Of course, there may be options to accept lower medical standards for a UAS pilot than, say, a CF-18 pilot, as the environmental concerns are significantly less (no G-force, no O2 mask etc)...


That decision hasn’t been made yet.  Our allies are starting to use non-pilots in command of UAS in non-segregated airspace and while it is a remote possibily at the moment, it still is a possibility that we do something like that.


----------



## kev994

SupersonicMax said:


> That decision hasn’t been made yet.  Our allies are starting to use non-pilots in command of UAS in non-segregated airspace and while it is a remote possibily at the moment, it still is a possibility that we do something like that.


There were ACSOs flying Herons on the det after mine in KAF, though I can’t say I can provide any feedback on how it went.


----------



## SupersonicMax

kev994 said:


> There were ACSOs flying Herons on the det after mine in KAF, though I can’t say I can provide any feedback on how it went.


Class 1 and 2 UAS may be piloted by anyone with a basic or advanced course (TC’s course until we develop our own). The discussions are focused on Class 3 UAS (basically a normal airplane without a crew).


----------



## kev994

SupersonicMax said:


> Class 1 and 2 UAS may be piloted by anyone with a basic or advanced course (TC’s course until we develop our own). The discussions are focused on Class 3 UAS (basically a normal airplane without a crew).


The Heron appears to be a Class 3 if I’m reading correctly. Though it was a war zone so there were technically no rules to be violated at the time. 








						IAI Heron - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## brihard

SupersonicMax said:


> That decision hasn’t been made yet.  Our allies are starting to use non-pilots in command of UAS in non-segregated airspace and while it is a remote possibily at the moment, it still is a possibility that we do something like that.


Isn’t this whole discussion, by its very nature, about ‘remote’ possibilities?


----------



## Kirkhill

Serious question.

How many aircraft does a typical Air Traffic Controller control concurrently?  And does talking to a pilot, rather than texting a robot, make life easier or more difficult?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well the robot knows it's a robot and not God.....


----------



## Zoomie

Kirkhill said:


> Serious question.
> 
> How many aircraft does a typical Air Traffic Controller control concurrently?  And does talking to a pilot, rather than texting a robot, make life easier or more difficult?


CPDLC is exactly that - ATC chatting via text messages to aircrew.    Most structured airspace (ie controlled) is vast with set routes in and out of congested airspace.  Edmonton ACC controls the north (where presumably our UAS would operate) - separation is achieved through RVSM procedures and the exacting positioning of aircraft due to enhanced GPS technologies (RNP below 1.0 etc).


----------



## CBH99

dapaterson said:


> What UAV Trade?
> 
> UAVs will be flown by pilots, with AESOps and possibly ACSOs colocated.
> 
> The actual airframes can be based anywhere, and will have the usual support folks - a token AERE officer who pretends they are in charge, with Air Maint Supervisors to keep the AVN, ACS and Air Weapons folks doing their jobs (plus the supply folks to keep the parts flowing).
> 
> And a metric shit ton of Int Os and Int Ops to actually leverage the tremendous streams of data that yet another platform with a wide array of sensors will generate.


Sorry, I should have worded my post differently.  I know there is no UAV trade.

You had mentioned _"Yet another tiny CAF det where you're going to be moving lots of people in and out doesn't act in the best interest of the institution to retain talent."_


My counter-points were simply that:

-  While it will be a small det, it will also be a small community overall within the CAF.

-  We wouldn't be moving lots of people in and out.  Once someone is qualified and has become an experienced UAV operator, that talent should be retained within that community/posting if at all possible.  As you stated, the UAVs themselves will be pretty far away, along with their various support staff.

-  If they are located in an area that is appealing (vibrant communities, can live off base and not always be surrounding by CAF, employment opportunities for spouses and educational options for the kids, etc) - that *IS* one of the best ways for us to retain talent.  



*Question for anybody with UAV experience* (Max?  Dimsum?) - would that community require a metric shit-ton of Int O's and Int Ops?  Or would a smaller, more streamlined group be a better fit?  (I'm not disagreeing with you at all dapaterson.  Curious to hear what anybody with direct UAV experience thinks would be the perfect/ideal place to be posted, and why.)



Posting people to fairly isolated communities with limited employment for spouses or kids, and not much to do, is a great way for us to encourage members to start seeing what is available on civi-side.  

I think members would be far more inclined to stay if they lived somewhere they found appealing, the family was happy/employed/had more opportunities, members were satisfied that they were directly contributing to the success of operations overseas, and the unit/community was pretty tight-knit due to it's size and classified nature of their operations.  

🍻   0.02


----------



## PuckChaser

As long as you have a stable a secure link, your GCS/pilots don't have to be anywhere close to your Int folks (pretty sure it's an Int Op specialty course to analyze ISR). UAS could be in Afganistan, flown from Winnipeg and viewed in Ottawa. The GCS will need to be somewhere near a major urban center, as the bandwidth requirements to spit to video out onto DND networks will be intense.


----------



## captloadie

Posting people to larger vibrant locations where they have to live on the economy has a down side though - affordability. Currently Ottawa, Toronto, Victoria, hell even Trenton, have become areas where many CAF members can't get into the housing market. In the past it was Edmonton. So what happens in those situations? Members try to get military housing, and are stuck with the down sides of some of the aspects of military life. 

Let's be honest, if I were a maintainer right now, I would be looking at the decisions being made on basing, and likely be thinking that the Officers are looking out for themselves, and once again screwing the troops. That isn't necessarily the true case, but that's how it appears. We can cage it as pilot retention if we like, but there will be others who ask the question why does it need to be pilots operating the UAVs, if there is already a shortage. And the answers they will be given are not going to satisfy them, because honestly, it doesn't need to be fully trained CAF pilots doing the job. We could, if we wanted, pipeline individuals off the street, instruct them on what they need to know to operate the vehicles, and train them on the civilian flying regulations they need to know to operate in controlled airspace (just like private pilots learn). The real issue with this is what to do with them to give them a break from the job. Probably not an issue when there are no real kinetic operations happening, but in speaking with former UAV operators who flew in Afghanistan and Iraq, you can only do it for so long before they needed a break from that type of work.


----------



## Good2Golf

I’d be surprised if the UAS went anywhere other than 2 Wing Bagotville.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CBH99 said:


> We wouldn't be moving lots of people in and out. Once someone is qualified and has become an experienced UAV operator, that talent should be retained within that community/posting if at all possible. As you stated, the UAVs themselves will be pretty far away, along with their various support staff.



I wouldn't be surprised if there was a "high wall" ( hard to get out of the community, once you're in it and trained) for the working ranks (Capt/Lt for Officer...NCM up to say....WO) for the aircrew trades, especially if the platform is armed.  We tend to do this now, to a large extent. 

Something else to consider, especially from an expeditionary ops perspective;  the crews might experience 'burn out' faster than manned crews.  The sustained op LRP put on for several years at IMPACT comes to mind, and there is an article about this that might have been already posted on here...Dimsum might know the article I'm thinking about (while I swat cobwebs and try to search for it).

My trade (AES Op) has the thumb on the pulse to an extent as we will definitely be manning the Payload Op positions, and "location" is a significant consideration for most people when considering the "interested/not interested" question for RPAs....but that is true for any fleet we are/will be active on. 

I wouldn't be surprised if there is something akin to our current restricted OT/release dates once we complete Wings training for RPAs folks, more so at the start when trg costs are likely to be higher (the first...5?  10? years).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PuckChaser said:


> As long as you have a stable a secure link, your GCS/pilots don't have to be anywhere close to your Int folks (pretty sure it's an Int Op specialty course to analyze ISR). UAS could be in Afganistan, flown from Winnipeg and viewed in Ottawa. The GCS will need to be somewhere near a major urban center, as the bandwidth requirements to spit to video out onto DND networks will be intense.



Critical mass for the analysis stuff is in the Int mafia....I know a couple/handful of people who've completed the lower level courses, like FMV Analysis which is likely 'part' of the larger qual that is (was?) limited only to Int folks.

Ideal world, the operators would have similar trg for the 'real time' analysis;  PMA (Post Msn Anal), PED, etc would keep the 'big course'.  It's dumb to set things up that the guy/gal on the stick can't say "CERT MBT"...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:


> I’d be surprised if the UAS went anywhere other than 2 Wing Bagotville.



That means transits to "anywhere"....you don't think like SAR, LRP and MH they'll be divided coast to coast with a central GCS facility?

B-ville was mentioned before as a "possibility" for location and I can say for certain, interest in my trade for the Payload positions was negatively affected.


----------



## SupersonicMax

captloadie said:


> Posting people to larger vibrant locations where they have to live on the economy has a down side though - affordability. Currently Ottawa, Toronto, Victoria, hell even Trenton, have become areas where many CAF members can't get into the housing market. In the past it was Edmonton. So what happens in those situations? Members try to get military housing, and are stuck with the down sides of some of the aspects of military life.
> 
> Let's be honest, if I were a maintainer right now, I would be looking at the decisions being made on basing, and likely be thinking that the Officers are looking out for themselves, and once again screwing the troops. That isn't necessarily the true case, but that's how it appears. We can cage it as pilot retention if we like, but there will be others who ask the question why does it need to be pilots operating the UAVs, if there is already a shortage. And the answers they will be given are not going to satisfy them, because honestly, it doesn't need to be fully trained CAF pilots doing the job. We could, if we wanted, pipeline individuals off the street, instruct them on what they need to know to operate the vehicles, and train them on the civilian flying regulations they need to know to operate in controlled airspace (just like private pilots learn). The real issue with this is what to do with them to give them a break from the job. Probably not an issue when there are no real kinetic operations happening, but in speaking with former UAV operators who flew in Afghanistan and Iraq, you can only do it for so long before they needed a break from that type of work.


Why is it, in your opinion, seen as « officers taking care of officers? » NCMs really want to live in the middle of nowhere?  Where do NCMs want to be posted for longer term?

And yes, people need a break from the front line but there are plenty of positions to rotation people around, especially if we can establish HQ positions remotely (Standards and Eval Teams, Fleet Readiness staff, Ops, etc).  In this day and age, it shouldn’t be an issue.


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:


> That means transits to "anywhere"....you don't think like SAR, LRP and MH they'll be divided coast to coast with a central GCS facility?
> 
> B-ville was mentioned before as a "possibility" for location and I can say for certain, interest in my trade for the Payload positions was negatively affected.


Nope.  

Perhaps a deployed Det now and then, but I think for maintenance and service support purposes, they’ll be centralized at a single MOB, like the CH-147F.


----------



## captloadie

SupersonicMax said:


> Why is it, in your opinion, seen as « officers taking care of officers? » NCMs really want to live in the middle of nowhere?  Where do NCMs want to be posted for longer term?
> 
> And yes, people need a break from the front line but there are plenty of positions to rotation people around, especially if we can establish HQ positions remotely (Standards and Eval Teams, Fleet Readiness staff, Ops, etc).  In this day and age, it shouldn’t be an issue.


In the discussions I have been in on, the proposed locations where the vehicles and the maintainers would be located are not in large  vibrant areas, but in some of the current locations individuals already complain about as postings. The main GCSs however are expected to be in a centralized location that would lend to providing decision makers with real time access (even though in this day and age this could be done from anywhere).

I wasn't very clear. I'm not saying that officers are looking out for themselves, I'm saying that there may be a perception of that. There are some very valid reasons to the proposed basing locations that are in fact operationally driven, and not HR focused, but individuals will choose to believe the worst some times.


----------



## SupersonicMax

captloadie said:


> The main GCSs however are expected to be in a centralized location that would lend to providing decision makers with real time access (even though in this day and age this could be done from anywhere).


Perhaps the “Centralized Control” portion of the Air Force tenet of “Centralized Control, Decentralized Execution” is taken too literally…..


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> It will be a fairly small and closed community regardless, given it's size


Maybe for now, but I (personally) don't think it'll stay a small community.

For example, the USAF trains more RPA pilots than traditional aircraft pilots now, and at least one fighter squadron has converted to flying MQ-9A Reapers. 

Also, the Comd of the Royal Air Force has suggested that by 2040, 80% of the RAF's combat fleet will be remotely crewed or uncrewed.



> *2040: Changed mindset*​ACM Wigston, again, speaking as if it were 2040, said the Integrated Operating Concept of 2020 had been brought to life "physically, and conceptually, driving a change of mindset across the Armed Forces".
> 
> This included a "pivotal shift" from crewed to uncrewed systems over the two decades from 2020.
> 
> He added: "When you look at the totality of our Lightning, Tempest, Mosquito, Alvina, Protector and the last of our Typhoon squadrons, it's quite remarkable to think that the Royal Air Force combat air force is now more than 80% uncrewed or remotely crewed."


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> I’d be surprised if the UAS went anywhere other than 2 Wing Bagotville.


Did you mean physical location, or under its administrative control, like 14/19 Wing for Auroras?


----------



## Good2Golf

Location.   C2 likely otherwise.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> Location.   C2 likely otherwise.


I honestly don’t think there’s enough physical space to base those big UAS there…


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> I honestly don’t think there’s enough physical space to base those big UAS there…


Might not be an issue if they can find the $1.8B of infrastructure money that Catherine McKenna lost...


----------



## dimsum

.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I hear "possibilities" only and don't track this topic out of personal interest, but the RUMINT I've heard points to central C2, airframes distributed to more than 1 MOB.  

I'll likely be CRA, or close, before this happens so...


----------



## rnkelly

Good2Golf said:


> I’d be surprised if the UAS went anywhere other than 2 Wing Bagotville.



Erin O'Toole agrees.









						Visite éclair d’Erin O’Toole à Jonquière | Élections Canada 2021
					

Le chef du Parti conservateur du Canada a fait une courte escale dans l’arrondissement de Jonquière.



					ici.radio-canada.ca


----------



## Kirkhill

Remotely Piloted Otter?

A new short strip, rough field variant of the Predator-Reaper family:  The Mojave.









						General Atomics' Rough Field-Capable Mojave Drone Breaks Cover
					

The new Mojave drone is like an intriguing mix of OV-10 Bronco and MQ-9 Reaper.




					www.thedrive.com
				








The companion piece is Raytheon's eJPALS






Another reason to place the capability under 2 Wing?


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:


> Another reason to place the capability under 2 Wing?


Question - if RPAS will be used for Arctic and maritime surveillance of domestic areas, should it still be under 2 Wg?  My understanding of 2 Wg is that it has assets that will only be used in expeditionary missions, not domestic ones.

For example:  CP-140s are used for both expeditionary and domestic missions, but they don't fall under 2 Wg.  Similarly, CF-18s are under 3 and 4 Wg.  Why would RPAS be any different?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

I can't believe this thread was started nearly 15 years ago.  Amazing how little can be accomplished in so much time 🤣


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I can't believe this thread was started nearly 15 years ago.  Amazing how little can be accomplished in so much time 🤣



I dunno... it's up to 20 pages now


----------



## Kirkhill

dimsum said:


> Question - if RPAS will be used for Arctic and maritime surveillance of domestic areas, should it still be under 2 Wg?  My understanding of 2 Wg is that it has assets that will only be used in expeditionary missions, not domestic ones.
> 
> For example:  CP-140s are used for both expeditionary and domestic missions, but they don't fall under 2 Wg.  Similarly, CF-18s are under 3 and 4 Wg.  Why would RPAS be any different?



I don't know that answer.  There are experts in the field.

The eJPALS control system for managing the airspace, if acquired, seems to be, to this layman, a match with 2 Wing's expeditionary role.  The next question is:  is the North an expeditionary environment?

If so does the RCAF need a STOL UAS?  Or is it something that might come in useful?  Or is it an unnecessary luxury it can't afford?

Conversely, if the aircraft is going to spend most of its life over water should it go to 14 and 19 Wings with dets being attached to 2  Wing when required?  

ie, Is it a tactical or an operational asset?


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:


> dets being attached to 2 Wing when required?


From my understanding, air task forces do not become attached to 2 Wg when deployed.

2 Air Expeditionary Wing is basically the "first to go" for a deployed ops HQ, to set up for the actual Air Task Force HQ.


----------



## Kirkhill

dimsum said:


> From my understanding, air task forces do not become attached to 2 Wg when deployed.
> 
> 2 Air Expeditionary Wing is basically the "first to go" for a deployed ops HQ, to set up for the actual Air Task Force HQ.


So more like a Theatre Activation role than a continuing operational one?


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> Question - if RPAS will be used for Arctic and maritime surveillance of domestic areas, should it still be under 2 Wg?  My understanding of 2 Wg is that it has assets that will only be used in expeditionary missions, not domestic ones.
> 
> For example:  CP-140s are used for both expeditionary and domestic missions, but they don't fall under 2 Wg.  Similarly, CF-18s are under 3 and 4 Wg.  Why would RPAS be any different?


The B-GA-401-001/FP-001 Figures 2.4 and 2.5 apply.

Unless of course, we don’t follow our doctrine.


----------



## Kirkhill

Separately, I was thinking more about the STOL capability and what it might mean in the Arctic.   And it applies to the MORGUNZ debates as regards the MCDVs and the AOPSs.

If the MCDVs and the AOPSs have persistent top cover from something like the MOJAVE/REAPER/PREDATOR/PROTECTOR is the onboard requirement for GUNZ'n'MSLZ as great?

And if a Flight of UAS's could refuel and rearm in places like Alert, Eureka, Resolute and Nanisivik in all weather how would that impact the need for onboard helicopters and UASs?

If the PROTECTOR solution were adopted would they return to COMOX and GREENWOOD or would they operate out of FOLs like INUVIK, IQALUIT and GOOSE BAY?

Personally I can see a number of advantages for being able to operate further forward even if the vehicle is not fully optimized for the long range mission.

It would certainly play into the "kinder-gentler" image that our politicians seem most comfortable with.  The surface image is that of the kindly local "Bobby" unarmed.  But always capable of deploying "the Bolt from the Blue".



The Air Det's command center.


----------



## CBH99

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I can't believe this thread was started nearly 15 years ago.  Amazing how little can be accomplished in so much time 🤣


Ahem…


“This is an incorrect assessment of the tasks accomplished within the timeframe stated.  

During the last 15 years, we have allowed RPA technology to progress significantly, resulting in RPA systems that are safer, more efficient, more reliable, and can employ more advanced sensors, cameras, data systems, and weapons.  

We also positioned ourselves in such a way that these advancements were made at 0 cost to the Canadian taxpayer.  

When we do sign a contract to acquire the aircraft, the Canadian Armed Forces will be acquiring a platform that is among the best in the world - and one that is significantly more advanced and reliable than if we had acquired the aircraft at the beginning of the project.  

Canadians should take comfort in knowing that _their_ Canadian Forces supported an entire R&D cycle in a way that respects the Canadian taxpayer, and will result in Canada being one of only a few countries in the world to field such an advanced system at such an affordable cost.”


There.  PR folks, feel free to copy & paste.  I’ll wait for my cheque in the mail.  😉


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:


> Personally I can see a number of advantages for being able to operate further forward even if the vehicle is not fully optimized for the long range mission.
> 
> It would certainly play into the "kinder-gentler" image that our politicians seem most comfortable with. The surface image is that of the kindly local "Bobby" unarmed. But always capable of deploying "the Bolt from the Blue".


I'm not sure how the "kinder-gentler" image would be different if the RPAS was launched/recovered forward or far away.  The MQ-1/9 series of RPAS fly high - people on the ground aren't going to see or hear them.


----------



## daftandbarmy

CBH99 said:


> Ahem…
> 
> 
> “This is an incorrect assessment of the tasks accomplished within the timeframe stated.
> 
> During the last 15 years, we have allowed RPA technology to progress significantly, resulting in RPA systems that are safer, more efficient, more reliable, and can employ more advanced sensors, cameras, data systems, and weapons.
> 
> We also positioned ourselves in such a way that these advancements were made at 0 cost to the Canadian taxpayer.
> 
> When we do sign a contract to acquire the aircraft, the Canadian Armed Forces will be acquiring a platform that is among the best in the world - and one that is significantly more advanced and reliable than if we had acquired the aircraft at the beginning of the project.
> 
> Canadians should take comfort in knowing that _their_ Canadian Forces supported an entire R&D cycle in a way that respects the Canadian taxpayer, and will result in Canada being one of only a few countries in the world to field such an advanced system at such an affordable cost.”
> 
> 
> There.  PR folks, feel free to copy & paste.  I’ll wait for my cheque in the mail.  😉


----------



## Kirkhill

dimsum said:


> I'm not sure how the "kinder-gentler" image would be different if the RPAS was launched/recovered forward or far away.  The MQ-1/9 series of RPAS fly high - people on the ground aren't going to see or hear them.



Not about "kindler-gentler"  RPAS but rather "kindler-gentler" boats.  The fact that the people being confronted by the boats are unaware of the available aerial support is all to the better.  No need to tell them that they're in the sniper's sights.


----------



## Kirkhill

Kirkhill said:


> Not about "kindler-gentler"  RPAS but rather "kindler-gentler" boats.  The fact that the people being confronted by the boats are unaware of the available aerial support is all to the better.  No need to tell them that they're in the sniper's sights.



As to the issue of being able to refuel and rearm in close proximity to point of use - that only becomes critical if the weaponry is being used, or the sensor pods need changing out to meet variable requirements.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Kirkhill said:


> As to the issue of being able to refuel and rearm in close proximity to point of use - that only becomes critical if the weaponry is being used, or the sensor pods need changing out to meet variable requirements.



Not sure I agree.  Transit distances/ times from MOB / FOL to op area might be a factor, as will number of serviceable airframes in situations where there is a need for persistent presence, conduct hot handovers, etc.  

My experience working with (as in sharing airspace with) RPAS is they are slow, and strong winds and weather can significantly reduce their ability to conduct ops.  Long transits thru areas with lots of weather can mean deviations, adding more time to transit/ONSTA times.


----------



## dimsum

Update:






						Ottawa launches long-awaited competition for armed military drones
					

OTTAWA — The federal government has officially launched a competition for the purchase of armed drones after nearly two decades of delays and discussion around…




					nationalpost.com


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> Update:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ottawa launches long-awaited competition for armed military drones
> 
> 
> OTTAWA — The federal government has officially launched a competition for the purchase of armed drones after nearly two decades of delays and discussion around…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalpost.com


----------



## kev994

“Some have previously criticized the decision to buy armed drones given concerns about their potential use in Canada and numerous reports of airstrikes by other nations, particularly the United States and Russia, causing unintended damage and civilian casualties.”

What do they think fighters do?


----------



## dimsum

kev994 said:


> “Some have previously criticized the decision to buy armed drones given concerns about their potential use in Canada and numerous reports of airstrikes by other nations, particularly the United States and Russia, causing unintended damage and civilian casualties.”
> 
> What do they think fighters do?


There's a weird disconnect.  We obviously know there's little difference, but for some reason everyone gets up in arms over a pilot flying an RPAS firing a missile, vs a pilot in a fighter firing a missile.

The fighter pilot is also looking through a SNIPER pod or similar, so it's literally two different types of aircraft flying high, staring at a camera, then pressing a button.


----------



## CBH99

kev994 said:


> “Some have previously criticized the decision to buy armed drones given concerns about their potential use in Canada and numerous reports of airstrikes by other nations, particularly the United States and Russia, causing unintended damage and civilian casualties.”
> 
> What do they think fighters do?


Is it just the way my mind read this, or does the author attempt to convey that they could be used _in_ Canada?  🤦🏼‍♂️

Editors at National Post… where art thou?


(The people who have concerns about RPA dropping bombs are the same people who would disband the military altogether, disarm/defund the police, etc and who’s input doesn’t remotely matter… my 2 cents)


----------



## kev994

CBH99 said:


> Is it just the way my mind read this, or does the author attempt to convey that they could be used _in_ Canada?  🤦🏼‍♂️
> 
> Editors at National Post… where art thou?
> 
> 
> (The people who have concerns about RPA dropping bombs are the same people who would disband the military altogether, disarm/defund the police, etc and who’s input doesn’t remotely matter… my 2 cents)


That’s what it says. But I think they mean spying on Canadians. Because that’s not boring.


----------



## MilEME09

Ottawa launches long-awaited competition for armed military drones
					

The federal government has officially launched a competition for the purchase of armed drones after nearly two decades of delays and discussion.




					www.ctvnews.ca
				




Let the procurement games begin


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99 said:


> Is it just the way my mind read this, or does the author attempt to convey that they could be used _in_ Canada?



Maybe only the most extreme, dangerous, racist “fringe elements” of society, I’m sure…. 😉


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> Is it just the way my mind read this, or does the author attempt to convey that they could be used _in_ Canada? 🤦🏼‍♂️


They could totally be used in Canada.  Maritime surveillance, arctic surveillance, the "search" part of SAR...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

dimsum said:


> They could totally be used in Canada.  Maritime surveillance, arctic surveillance, the "search" part of SAR...


Searching for JT? Checking the surf conditions in Tofino?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The RCAF could end this discussion with a PR that states “we already own/operate sensors like the RPAS would have and their use in Canada is restricted IAW Canadian laws.  The same restrictions would hold true for any new air vehicle”.  fighters, LRP, Tac Avn, MAISR…FWSAR in the future.

I_t does reveal the aircraft will be based at 14 Wing Greenwood in Nova Scotia and 19 Wing Comox in British Columbia, while the main control centre will be in the Ottawa area. Yellowknife is also identified as a forward operating location._

This is exactly what I’ve been hearing thru trade talk for some time.  Bagotville was discussed early on and the summary of feedback from my trade was “not interested” for QOL/family concerns.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> The RCAF could end this discussion with a PR that states “we already own/operate sensors like the RPAS would have and their use in Canada is restricted IAW Canadian laws. The same restrictions would hold true for any new air vehicle”. fighters, LRP, Tac Avn, MAISR…FWSAR in the future.


Frankly, the people that are outraged about RPAS being used to spy on Canadians (or worse) aren't the people who would trust RCAF PR, or the MSM.

🤷‍♂️


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> Frankly, the people that are outraged about RPAS being used to spy on Canadians (or worse) aren't the people who would trust RCAF PR, or the MSM.
> 
> 🤷‍♂️


But they also haven’t been complaining about police or military helicopters being able to fly overhead and look at them with the same technology as those drones.


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> But they also haven’t been complaining about police or military helicopters being able to fly overhead and look at them with the same technology as those drones.


I think there's a disconnect there - we know that fighters, etc use EO/IR systems but I bet Joe Public thinks the pilots literally look down at the target from 30,000' (while wearing a white silk scarf and smoking a pipe) to line up their bomb runs.


----------



## dapaterson

dimsum said:


> I think there's a disconnect there - we know that fighters, etc use EO/IR systems but I bet Joe Public thinks the pilots literally look down at the target from 30,000' (while wearing a white silk scarf and smoking a pipe) to line up their bomb runs.


Please, it's 2022.

Pilots vape.


----------



## dimsum

dapaterson said:


> Please, it's 2022.
> 
> Pilots vape.


Do they still have free-range, non-GMO, gluten-free silk scarves though?  

Please say yes.


----------



## dapaterson

Well, that's a dress issue, so it obviously has to be referred to a committee of CWOs who will complain about how things were different back when they joined, and how kids today have unreasonable expectations of being treated well and not jerked around for no reason, and will draft illogical rules that pilots will ignore.


----------



## SupersonicMax

dimsum said:


> Do they still have free-range, non-GMO, gluten-free silk scarves though?
> 
> Please say yes.


I’d settle for one that doesn’t come off at the seams after 2 months of light use.


----------



## kev994

dapaterson said:


> Well, that's a dress issue, so it obviously has to be referred to a committee of CWOs who will complain about how things were different back when they joined, and how kids today have unreasonable expectations of being treated well and not jerked around for no reason, and will draft illogical rules that pilots will ignore.


Speaking of which… in the DComd RCAFs ask me anything someone brought up the glove/toque conundrum. He said something to the effect that he can’t believe that’s the kind of chicken ?)$@ people have to deal with and he’ll run it past the RCAF chief.


----------



## dimsum

kev994 said:


> Speaking of which… in the DComd RCAFs ask me anything someone brought up the glove/toque conundrum. He said something to the effect that he can’t believe that’s the kind of chicken ?)$@ people have to deal with and he’ll run it past the RCAF chief.


Yup.  That was glorious.  

Then there was the side-chat that some Wings have Standing Orders that de-link toques and gloves and some don't, so it's not even standardized between locations.



SupersonicMax said:


> I’d settle for one that doesn’t come off at the seams after 2 months of light use.


_Peerless Garments has entered the chat_


----------



## kev994

dimsum said:


> Yup.  That was glorious.
> 
> Then there was the side-chat that some Wings have Standing Orders that de-link toques and gloves and some don't, so it's not even standardized between locations.
> 
> 
> _Peerless Garments has entered the chat_


I looked into this; so the authority for wear of operational dress is the formation Commander, so this is absolutely possible.


----------



## kev994

SupersonicMax said:


> I’d settle for one that doesn’t come off at the seams after 2 months of light use.


My gloves that I got from the USCG (Wiley-x Aries) are finally wearing out after ~5 years, and I don’t need to take them off every time I want to use my EFB (they’re cut-off by design on thumb, index, middle-finger). Government price is $54USD a pair. But unlikely to have enough Canadian content to be able to keep us from burning.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

kev994 said:


> I looked into this; so the authority for wear of operational dress is the formation Commander, so this is absolutely possible.



 Note - not the Formation CWO.  🙂

My Wing is one of the ones that has actual details on toque / gloves wearing; leads to a question, is there actually a need for Wing Dress Instructions or does the CADO suffice?

* I have ignored this Chart for many years now and will continue to do so.


----------



## Kirkhill

Not quite the same as Justas









						Massive Drone Swarm Over Strait Decisive In Taiwan Conflict Wargames
					

Air Force and independent think tank simulations show giant drone swarms are key to defeating China's invasion of Taiwan.




					www.thedrive.com


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> Not quite the same as Justas


…unless ~10-12 could be considered to comprise a swarm? 🤷🏻‍♂️


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> …unless ~10-12 could be considered to comprise a swarm? 🤷🏻‍♂️


Maybe?

Or even an inter-connected flight of 3 or 4?


----------



## CBH99

MilEME09 said:


> Ottawa launches long-awaited competition for armed military drones
> 
> 
> The federal government has officially launched a competition for the purchase of armed drones after nearly two decades of delays and discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the procurement games begin


Can we just skip the games in the interest of saving a decent amount of taxpayer dollars that could then be used elsewhere, or saved within DND & re-allocated to something else that’s lacking some funds?

(Vice burned at the alter of military project inflation rates.)

I know, I know… it doesn’t work like that.  😥


Serious question for anybody in the know…

Are we still looking for a Predator/Triton type UAV to support land/water operations?  

Or is this project evolving/changing?


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> Are we still looking for a Predator/Triton type UAV to support land/water operations?


Predators and Tritons are two totally different classes of RPAs.

The two competitors are:

MQ-9B SkyGuardian (successor to the MQ-9A Reaper - itself a larger, turboprop Predator) 
IAI Heron TP (larger, turboprop Heron that was used in Afghanistan)
Both are designed to fly around 25-35,000' for over a day.

The MQ-4C Triton is the marinized version of the RQ-4 Global Hawk, a huge jet-powered aircraft designed to hang out at 50,000' for multiple days.


----------



## quadrapiper

dimsum said:


> The MQ-4C Triton is the marinized version of the RQ-4 Global Hawk, a huge jet-powered aircraft designed to hang out at 50,000' for multiple days.


Would something of that nature be worth the cost, hassle, infrastructure, etc. to complement/augment MPA and other crewed coastal surveillance?


----------



## dimsum

quadrapiper said:


> Would something of that nature be worth the cost, hassle, infrastructure, etc. to complement/augment MPA and other crewed coastal surveillance?


The USN uses it.  The RAAF is buying it.


----------



## MTShaw

CBH99 said:


> Can we just skip the games in the interest of saving a decent amount of taxpayer dollars that could then be used elsewhere, or saved within DND & re-allocated to something else that’s lacking some funds?
> 
> (Vice burned at the alter of military project inflation rates.)
> 
> I know, I know… it doesn’t work like that.  😥
> 
> 
> Serious question for anybody in the know…
> 
> Are we still looking for a Predator/Triton type UAV to support land/water operations?
> 
> Or is this project evolving/changing?


There are very few RQ-9B drones in the world. So no. The probject required it be armed, so no Triton. 






						Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) - Canada.ca
					

This project will acquire a medium altitude and armed Remotely Piloted Aircraft System along with associated equipment, weapons, infrastructure and in-service sustainment capability that will support up to three concurrent lines of operation, domestic or international. This project supports...




					www.canada.ca
				









						Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) Project - Defence Capabilities Blueprint
					

Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) Project - Defence Capabilities Blueprint




					dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca


----------



## quadrapiper

dimsum said:


> The USN uses it.  The RAAF is buying it.


Excellent. Imagine it would be of use in the north, as well: use some of that endurance to base out of existing southern-ish RCAF facilities.


----------



## dimsum

quadrapiper said:


> Excellent. Imagine it would be of use in the north, as well: use some of that endurance to base out of existing southern-ish RCAF facilities.


The current competitors have a ton of range/endurance as well.


----------



## Kirkhill

dimsum said:


> The current competitors have a ton of range/endurance as well.



The best is the enemy of good enough.

I'll take something rather than nothing.   

From what I understand both competitors have got track records.


----------



## OldSolduer

dimsum said:


> Predators and Tritons are two totally different classes of RPAs.
> 
> The two competitors are:
> 
> MQ-9B SkyGuardian (successor to the MQ-9A Reaper - itself a larger, turboprop Predator)
> IAI Heron TP (larger, turboprop Heron that was used in Afghanistan)
> Both are designed to fly around 25-35,000' for over a day.
> 
> The MQ-4C Triton is the marinized version of the RQ-4 Global Hawk, a huge jet-powered aircraft designed to hang out at 50,000' for multiple days.


So because I'm curious how do you fly these? Do you have shifts of operators?


----------



## kev994

OldSolduer said:


> So because I'm curious how do you fly these? Do you have shifts of operators?


We flew shifts in the original Heron, IIRC we did 2 hours in the box, 2 hour break, 2 hours back in. Plus pre and post flight stuff, first guy had to drive to the hangar and do a walk around but that won’t be an option if they’re remote.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ya, there could be a separate launch/recovery control station and a mission one.  Launch recovery crews fly to a hand over point, mission crews takes control, mission crews rotate pers, mission crew flies back to handover point, launch recover crew takes control and brings the asset home.


----------



## kev994

Eye In The Sky said:


> ya, there could be a separate launch/recovery control station and a mission one.  Launch recovery crews fly to a hand over point, mission crews takes control, mission crews rotate pers, mission crew flies back to handover point, launch recover crew takes control and brings the asset home.


That’s what the Americans were doing with the preds. If they had fuel left when they got it back they’d keep flying it locally, there was always work available.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> ya, there could be a separate launch/recovery control station and a mission one.  Launch recovery crews fly to a hand over point, mission crews takes control, mission crews rotate pers, mission crew flies back to handover point, launch recover crew takes control and brings the asset home.


The new generation doesn't need the launch/recovery station anymore.



OldSolduer said:


> So because I'm curious how do you fly these? Do you have shifts of operators?


Yes - and by "operators" it's a Pilot, Sensor Operator, and the Int crew.  We're talking 5-7 people per shift.

It's ironic that an "unmanned" platform has a larger crew than most manned platforms.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> The new generation doesn't need the launch/recovery station anymore.



Interesting; so just a few maint and wpns folks.   Efficient!

Hmmmm.  What will ‘flight feeding’ be called in the RPAS community?


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> Hmmmm.  What will ‘flight feeding’ be called in the RPAS community?


The Mess...?

That Mess would need to be 24/7 though.  So...yeah...


----------



## Ostrozac

dimsum said:


> It's ironic that an "unmanned" platform has a larger crew than most manned platforms.


Unmanned aircraft, counterintuitively, are very manpower intensive.

They require people at the operating bases to maintain, fuel and arm the things. They require a legion of shift workers to run the missions. They require technicians to maintain the secure networks that link everything together. Not to mention mission planners, policy, intelligence, legal…


----------



## Kirkhill

dimsum said:


> The new generation doesn't need the launch/recovery station anymore.
> 
> 
> Yes - and by "operators" it's a Pilot, Sensor Operator, and the Int crew.  We're talking 5-7 people per shift.
> 
> It's ironic that an "unmanned" platform has a larger crew than most manned platforms.



So, aside from the "bus driver" up front it is like keeping an Aurora in the air continuously?


----------



## Underway

Eye In The Sky said:


> Interesting; so just a few maint and wpns folks.   Efficient!
> 
> Hmmmm.  What will ‘flight feeding’ be called in the RPAS community?


Takeout orders and Coffee Runs.

I believe these things ground station is going to be in the Ottawa area, but the aircraft will be stationed where they need to fly from.

I'm thinking MQ-9B is going to win the competition.  It has so many more users, and has many more options for loadouts (including Sonobuoy's as an example).  Just that much better than a Heron.  But of course, if they are both compliant it depends on the whole of bid scoring and there are likely things I don't know about like cost and maintenance where the Heron could be better.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Underway said:


> I'm thinking MQ-9B is going to win the competition.  It has so many more users, and has many more options for loadouts (including Sonobuoy's as an example).  Just that much better than a Heron.


CC295 enters the chat


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:


> So, aside from the "bus driver" up front it is like keeping an Aurora in the air continuously?


That's probably the best analogy for a current RCAF aircraft.  Plus the air-to-ground strike bit.

Likely with more screens, because there's no weight limit on the Ground Control Station (or, apparently, thought for Human Factors). 

Below is supposedly an MQ-9A station for Pilot and Sensor Operator.


----------



## Good2Golf

¿Dónde está el piss-tube?


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> ¿Dónde está el piss-tube?


----------



## kev994

Good2Golf said:


> ¿Dónde está el piss-tube?


It didn’t meet the GBA+++ specs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ostrozac said:


> Unmanned aircraft, counterintuitively, are very manpower intensive.
> 
> They require people at the operating bases to maintain, fuel and arm the things. They require a legion of shift workers to run the missions. They require technicians to maintain the secure networks that link everything together. Not to mention mission planners, policy, intelligence, legal…



Those are also things needed to launch/support/turn around manned crewed AC too?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> That's probably the best analogy for a current RCAF aircraft.  Plus the air-to-ground strike bit.
> 
> Likely with more screens, because there's no weight limit on the Ground Control Station (or, apparently, thought for Human Factors).
> 
> Below is supposedly an MQ-9A station for Pilot and Sensor Operator.
> 
> View attachment 70978



I hope the PO can swap some of those screens around to FMV feeds!

I was in a combined US/UK GCS and envied their fancy modern seats and effective AC.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Ostrozac said:


> Unmanned aircraft


Officially Uncrewed Aircraft now.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SupersonicMax said:


> Officially Uncrewed Aircraft now.


Canadian naming?  NATO?


----------



## SupersonicMax

Eye In The Sky said:


> Canadian naming?  NATO?


Both.


----------



## KevinB

SupersonicMax said:


> Both.


I thought you where kidding.


----------



## Underway

KevinB said:


> I thought you where kidding.


There has been a push for Uncrewed for years with many using the terms interchangeably.  Because pedantically a remotely piloted aircraft is more correctly referred to as uncrewed, not unmanned. Unmanned can mean not carrying a crew but broadly also includes _autonomous_ vehicles like drones.
Uncrewed means specifically not carrying a crew, but is still controlled by a ground station.

The fact that it aligns with inclusive language is convenient and likely another mark in favour of uncrewed.

The language for various forms of Remotely Piloted Vehicles and Autonomous Vehicles is evolving as the types are more and more defined and the old UXV acronyms no longer gives enough specific information.

*Unmanned: not carrying, staffed, and/or performed by people
Uncrewed: not carrying a crew*


----------



## Spencer100

Underway said:


> There has been a push for Uncrewed for years with many using the terms interchangeably.  Because pedantically a remotely piloted aircraft is more correctly referred to as uncrewed, not unmanned. Unmanned can mean not carrying a crew but broadly also includes _autonomous_ vehicles like drones.
> Uncrewed means specifically not carrying a crew, but is still controlled by a ground station.
> 
> The fact that it aligns with inclusive language is convenient and likely another mark in favour of uncrewed.
> 
> The language for various forms of Remotely Piloted Vehicles and Autonomous Vehicles is evolving as the types are more and more defined and the old UXV acronyms no longer gives enough specific information.
> 
> *Unmanned: not carrying, staffed, and/or performed by people
> Uncrewed: not carrying a crew*


Plus Unmanned is Unwoke!  or something something.....


----------



## dimsum

Spencer100 said:


> Plus Unmanned is Unwoke!  or something something.....


It wasn't due to that.


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> It wasn't due to that.


Probably did not hurt though…


----------



## calculus

Can't help but think this new Canadian engine option for the MQ-9B seriously strengthens General Atomics' chances with RPAS:









						General Atomics tests Pratt & Whitney turboprop engine on MQ-9B
					

The California maker of unmanned aerial vehicles recently tested the more-powerful engine for its MQ-9B remotely piloted aircraft, successor to the combat-proven MQ-9A Reaper.




					www.flightglobal.com


----------



## Spencer100

calculus said:


> Can't help but think this new Canadian engine option for the MQ-9B seriously strengthens General Atomics' chances with RPAS:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General Atomics tests Pratt & Whitney turboprop engine on MQ-9B
> 
> 
> The California maker of unmanned aerial vehicles recently tested the more-powerful engine for its MQ-9B remotely piloted aircraft, successor to the combat-proven MQ-9A Reaper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.flightglobal.com


It could more Canadian content

How long does it take to buy a "drone"  These tread only started 15 years ago.  I know I Know! 

(secretly that is why I started the sub replacement thread......I can leave the earth knowing that one thing I started will long out live me.)


----------



## dimsum

Spencer100 said:


> How long does it take to buy a "drone" These tread only started 15 years ago. I know I Know!


When the system is (was) controversial, media coverage is generally negative, and some folks didn't want them because they upset career progressions and [manned] pilot-centric cultures...


----------



## Kirkhill

Necessity is a mother



> Turkish combat drone maker Baykar hopes "soon" to be able to counter "kamikaze" drones in Ukraine, such as the Russian-operated Iranian drones recently threatening critical infrastructure, the company's CEO told Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa).
> 
> "Soon our Bayraktar TB2 and Akıncıs will have air-to-air missiles; not only to engage drones but other enemy aircraft... we are conducting our tests," Haluk Bayraktar said during a defense fair in Istanbul.








						Turkish drone maker Baykar ‘to counter kamikaze threat in Ukraine’ | Daily Sabah
					

Turkish combat drone maker Baykar hopes 'soon' to be able to counter 'kamikaze' drones in Ukraine, such as the Russian-operated Iranian drones recently...




					www.dailysabah.com


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:


> Necessity is a mother
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turkish drone maker Baykar ‘to counter kamikaze threat in Ukraine’ | Daily Sabah
> 
> 
> Turkish combat drone maker Baykar hopes 'soon' to be able to counter 'kamikaze' drones in Ukraine, such as the Russian-operated Iranian drones recently...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysabah.com


Every fighter pilot:


----------



## Kirkhill

And it gets more interesting -

Baykar is incorporating a new build jet engine, designed and manufactured in Ukraine, into a new jet powered UCAV, designed in Turkey.  The UCAV will be built in Ukraine.

As I said, necessity is a mother.  It forces the pace.









						Bayraktar plans to manufacture unmanned fighter jets in Ukraine
					

ECONOMICHNA PRAVDA – FRIDAY, 12 AUGUST 2022, 15:51




					www.pravda.com.ua
				












						Bayraktar presents new jet drone set to be manufactured in Ukraine
					

Baykar Makina, a Turkish manufacturer of combat drones, presented at the TEKNOFEST KARADENİZ exhibition in Samsun on August 30 a prototype of the Bayraktar Kızılelma (Red Apple) strike jet unmanned aerial vehicle. — Ukrinform.




					www.ukrinform.net


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:


> And it gets more interesting -
> 
> Baykar is incorporating a new build jet engine, designed and manufactured in Ukraine, into a new jet powered UCAV, designed in Turkey.  The UCAV will be built in Ukraine.
> 
> As I said, necessity is a mother.  It forces the pace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bayraktar plans to manufacture unmanned fighter jets in Ukraine
> 
> 
> ECONOMICHNA PRAVDA – FRIDAY, 12 AUGUST 2022, 15:51
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.pravda.com.ua
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bayraktar presents new jet drone set to be manufactured in Ukraine
> 
> 
> Baykar Makina, a Turkish manufacturer of combat drones, presented at the TEKNOFEST KARADENİZ exhibition in Samsun on August 30 a prototype of the Bayraktar Kızılelma (Red Apple) strike jet unmanned aerial vehicle. — Ukrinform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ukrinform.net


Maybe “Red Apple” sounds more badass in Turkish?


----------



## MTShaw

dimsum said:


> Maybe “Red Apple” sounds more badass in Turkish?


Imagine the Brits talking to the Americans about your Nuclear Program “Violet Club”.





						Violet Club - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Just thought I’d add the official GOC webpage on this one; not sure I’ve see it in the thread yet.  






						Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) - Canada.ca
					

This project will acquire a medium altitude and armed Remotely Piloted Aircraft System along with associated equipment, weapons, infrastructure and in-service sustainment capability that will support up to three concurrent lines of operation, domestic or international. This project supports...




					www.canada.ca


----------



## MTShaw

Eye In The Sky said:


> Just thought I’d add the official GOC webpage on this one; not sure I’ve see it in the thread yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> This project will acquire a medium altitude and armed Remotely Piloted Aircraft System along with associated equipment, weapons, infrastructure and in-service sustainment capability that will support up to three concurrent lines of operation, domestic or international. This project supports...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca


I desperately hope we buy the MQ-9B. The weapons fit out on the Israeli model might be a pain in the ass using western weapons. Plus the MQ-9B looks way cooler. 









						MQ-9B SkyGuardian
					

GA-ASI  has developed a variant of the Predator B Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) series that meets NATO standards (STANAG-4671), and in cooperation with the FAA, will subsequently meet airworthiness certification standards domestically and around the world.



					www.ga-asi.com
				




and a STOL version for less improved northern location. 









						A New Short-Field Advantage: MQ-9B STOL
					

Dave Alexander is a longtime aerospace engineer and the  president of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. Under his leadership  the company has strengthened its dominance in unmanned aerial systems across the world...



					www.ga-asi.com
				




Like I said, cooler.


----------



## dimsum

MTShaw said:


> I desperately hope we buy the MQ-9B. The weapons fit out on the Israeli model might be a pain in the ass using western weapons. Plus the MQ-9B looks way cooler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MQ-9B SkyGuardian
> 
> 
> GA-ASI  has developed a variant of the Predator B Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) series that meets NATO standards (STANAG-4671), and in cooperation with the FAA, will subsequently meet airworthiness certification standards domestically and around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> www.ga-asi.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and a STOL version for less improved northern location.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A New Short-Field Advantage: MQ-9B STOL
> 
> 
> Dave Alexander is a longtime aerospace engineer and the  president of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. Under his leadership  the company has strengthened its dominance in unmanned aerial systems across the world...
> 
> 
> 
> www.ga-asi.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, cooler.


The Heron TP bid dropped out in June.  Currently the only bidder is the MQ-9B.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> The Heron TP bid dropped out in June.  Currently the only bidder is the MQ-9B.



I was going to say something about that but...wasn't sure that was "known".









						Team SkyGuardian
					

Ensuring the success of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Industries that support them. Team SkyGuardian unites the best Canadian capabilities with the world's leading RPAS platform resulting in long-term Canadian jobs across aerospace, defence, and unmanned systems.



					www.ga-asi.com
				




I wish I was at the start, or closer to the start, or my AES Op career.  I'd be asking for this posting, no hesitation.  But, looks like it's "B IV Prison" for me.  😁


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> I was going to say something about that but...wasn't sure that was "known".








						Canada Moves Ahead With One RPAS Bid, Looks For Analysis Options | Aviation Week Network
					

The Royal Canadian Air Force is moving ahead on operational plans for its future Remotely Piloted Air Systems program, though it has work to do to determine how to analyze the data the future aircraft will collect.




					aviationweek.com
				




From a month ago.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

My google-fu didn't pick that up.  Hmmmmm....

I've seen some pics and data via our SOA/briefings, etc.  The pic I saw of the GCS was pretty swept up looking (which I can't provide on here, obviously).  Aside from the COL aspect and op tempo and impact...there are going to be some folks at the tip of the sword when this comes online that should be the envy of many in the CAF.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> Aside from the COL aspect and op tempo and impact...there are going to be some folks at the tip of the sword when this comes online that should be the envy of many in the CAF.


...and a ton of armchair-pilots deriding them for "playing video games".  But I digress.


----------



## suffolkowner

So we are in the home stretch now and should wrap this up within 5 yrs?


----------



## MTShaw

Do you people in the know have any idea if the MQ-9B will use the STOL capability, if you can indeed answer that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> ...and a ton of armchair-pilots deriding them for "playing video games".  But I digress.



Jealousy manifests in different ways....


----------



## dimsum

MTShaw said:


> Do you people in the know have any idea if the MQ-9B will use the STOL capability, if you can indeed answer that.


They're designed to fly for over 24h - probably don't need to be based close to the fight.  Just use existing airfields like standard mil aircraft.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

suffolkowner said:


> So we are in the home stretch now and should wrap this up within 5 yrs?



This is the official info:

4. Implementation​
Contract award: 2023/24
First delivery: 2025/26- 2026/27
Initial operational capability: 2027/28 – 2029/30
Full operational capability: 2030/31 – 2032/33


----------



## SupersonicMax

Eye In The Sky said:


> This is the official info:
> 
> 4. Implementation​
> Contract award: 2023/24
> First delivery: 2025/26- 2026/27
> Initial operational capability: 2027/28 – 2029/30
> Full operational capability: 2030/31 – 2032/33


4 to 6 years to get to Initial Operational Capability.  WW2 lasted 6 years. For reference.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SupersonicMax said:


> 4 to 6 years to get to Initial Operational Capability.  WW2 lasted 6 years. For reference.



Oh, I don't expect those timelines will be met.  😁

I'm too close to CRA (2030) to do anything but watch this one from the sidelines, but I really do hope this one goes forward as intended.


----------



## kev994

seems pretty aggressive. FWSAR project started in 2002 for reference, and I’m not even sure that was the first attempt. Fixed-wing search and rescue procurement project - Canada.ca


----------



## SupersonicMax

kev994 said:


> seems pretty aggressive. FWSAR project started in 2002 for reference, and I’m not even sure that was the first attempt. Fixed-wing search and rescue procurement project - Canada.ca


----------



## kev994

SupersonicMax said:


>


J-model stop-gap implementation is going much, much better than the ‘long term plan’.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Didn't know the J's were involved in that.  Funny how stove-piped we are being as my desk is all of 300m from a SAR Sqn...just always seem to be heads-down to our own world and problems.


----------



## kev994

Eye In The Sky said:


> Didn't know the J's were involved in that.  Funny how stove-piped we are being as my desk is all of 300m from a SAR Sqn...just always seem to be heads-down to our own world and problems.


H fleet is too small for 4 bases so J is taking over Trenton.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SupersonicMax said:


>



Who's not smiling?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

That picture is worth several thousand words…


----------



## Zoomie

FWIW the J-SAR implementation is a bit of a shit show too.  TEF still has its work cut out.   Crews need to learn how to plan on the go vice on the ground.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:


> That picture is worth several thousand words…



But wait, there’s more!



* this will also be my look if/when they announce the Block 5 Aurora…


----------



## MTShaw

Eye In The Sky said:


> But wait, there’s more!
> 
> View attachment 74749
> 
> * this will also be my look if/when they announce the Block 5 Aurora…


Never allow elected officials write specifications.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> But wait, there’s more!
> 
> View attachment 74749
> 
> * this will also be my look if/when they announce the Block 5 Aurora…


But how about the Block 6 Aurora?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> But how about the Block 6 Aurora?


----------



## dapaterson

dimsum said:


> But how about the Block 6 Aurora?


IMP will deliver in the early 2100s.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:


> IMP will deliver in the early 2100s.


----------



## Ping Monkey

Eye In The Sky said:


> But wait, there’s more!
> 
> View attachment 74749
> 
> * this will also be my look if/when they announce the Block 5 Aurora…



Caption should read...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dapaterson said:


> IMP will deliver in the early 2100s.


What does this word “deliver” mean?


----------



## dapaterson

Eye In The Sky said:


>


I mean, maybe that will just be the last of the Block IV...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:


> I mean, maybe that will just be the last of the Block IV...



Block 4 is working perfectly.  There are no hiccups.   It’s fine.  We’re all fine.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> 4 to 6 years to get to Initial Operational Capability.  WW2 lasted 6 years. For reference.


WW2 timelines were also compressed.  If a Gen 1 fighter (Spitfire, let’s say the plentiful Mk.XI developed to counter the FW190) were to fly over the same lifetime (so far) as Canada’s Gen 4 fighter (CF-18), then that Spitfire would have still been flying when the Hornet entered service.  One might consider that WW2 time references might not directly apply to today… 😉 



SeaKingTacco said:


> What does this word “deliver” mean?


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> WW2 timelines were also compressed.  If a Gen 1 fighter (Spitfire, let’s say the plentiful Mk.XI developed to counter the FW190) were to fly over the same lifetime (so far) as Canada’s Gen 4 fighter (CF-18), then that Spitfire would have still been flying when the Hornet entered service.  One might consider that WW2 time references might not directly apply to today… 😉
> 
> 
> View attachment 74800


I am not talking about aircraft flying in WW2 but the fact that a world war was started, fought and won in about a quarter of time it takes to acquire a less than desirable aircraft that is essentially unfit for the role it is meant to fill.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> I am not talking about aircraft flying in WW2 but the fact that a world war was started, fought and won in about a quarter of time it takes to acquire a less than desirable aircraft that is essentially unfit for the role it is meant to fill.


And I wasn’t just talking about the aircraft either, it was an example to demonstrate the difference in timelines over the years, while you were trying to juxtapose current activities near directly to a time over half a century ago.  Process, including specification, procurement, in-service use and sustainment, has dramatically increased since WW2.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> And I wasn’t just talking about the aircraft either, it was an example to demonstrate the difference in timelines over the years, while you were trying to juxtapose current activities near directly to a time over half a century ago.  Process, including specification, procurement, in-service use and sustainment, has dramatically increased since WW2.


Ok


----------



## CBH99

SupersonicMax said:


> I am not talking about aircraft flying in WW2 but the fact that a world war was started, fought and won in about a quarter of time it takes to acquire a less than desirable aircraft that is essentially unfit for the role it is meant to fill.


Agreed.  4 to 6 years just to get an IOC is actually pretty unambitious.  

At the rate tech improves, especially out of the R&D chambers of Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, etc - if we take 6 years to get to the IOC stage, that tech is already _way behind_ what else is coming out.

I don’t know all the processes, but I’m with Max on this one.  4-6 years just to get to IOC stage seems long, especially when you plug WW2 into that timeline.


----------



## Good2Golf

So what is an acceptable schedule from contract signing to IOC (as formally defined by the project sponsor) for a complex aerospace capability?


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> Process, including specification, procurement, in-service use and sustainment, has dramatically increased since WW2.



And that all boils down to risk - acceptance and management.

Some Spitfire Marks worked.  Others didn't do as well.  Kind of like the Sabre.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I attended a pretty detailed briefing on RPAS late last week;   the timeline to IOC & FOC has been and will be mostly influenced by government (in)decision and funding "challenges/realities".

If the wheels on this one don't exactly go "round and round"...I wouldn't be overly critical of RCAF personnel involved.


----------



## dapaterson

Exactly.  If you want to criticize RCAF / ADM Mat, there are other projects to choose from.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> Exactly.  If you want to criticize RCAF / ADM Mat, there are *lots of* other projects to choose from.


…and I see they misspelled ‘TCR Round 2’… 😉


----------



## kev994

IIRC for the Heron contract circa 2008/2009 it was about a year between the contract being signed and the aircraft being flown in theatre.


----------



## dapaterson

UoR vs regular procurement.


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:


> UoR vs regular procurement.


Can we make the Kingfisher replacement a UoR?


----------



## dapaterson

No long term sustainment plan?  That's one of the many UOR tradeoffs.  Not a great idea from an airworthiness perspective.

Better to ask where the problems came from and ensure they don't get repeated.


Almost as if buying off the shelf (Herc-J, C-17) doesn't end up a disaster (Cyclone, Kingfisher...).


----------



## Good2Golf

kev994 said:


> IIRC for the Heron contract circa 2008/2009 it was about a year between the contract being signed and the aircraft being flown in theatre.



And eight months for CH-147Ds after the FMS sale to Canada.



dapaterson said:


> Almost as if buying off the shelf (Herc-J, C-17) doesn't end up a disaster (Cyclone, Kingfisher...).


…or off someone else’s ‘almost finished’ shelf, then scoop them with the first purchase without their last little bits. 😉


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:


> No long term sustainment plan?  That's one of the many UOR tradeoffs.  Not a great idea from an airworthiness perspective.
> 
> Better to ask where the problems came from and ensure they don't get repeated.
> 
> 
> Almost as if buying off the shelf (Herc-J, C-17) doesn't end up a disaster (Cyclone, Kingfisher...).


Tell me how the Kingfisher is going from an airworthiness perspective again?


----------



## dapaterson

Tell me how its going from the perspective of requirements definition by pilots and AERE officers, and how they'd do a better job on a UOR?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:


> Tell me how the Kingfisher is going from an airworthiness perspective again?


It is not.


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:


> Tell me how its going from the perspective of requirements definition by pilots and AERE officers, and how they'd do a better job on a UOR?


You need people directly working with what you want to buy to decide what you need.  You need a procurement person to translate those needs into procurement speak.  The process works relatively well (albeit slowly) until you have political interference….


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> The process works relatively well (albeit slowly) until you have political interference…


----------



## dapaterson

If you abandon requirements after minor pushback instead of better articulation of the requirements to explain them to ISED, PSPC and other participants, that's on you, not on the system.

If you refuse to ever use the tools in your contract and instead let your vendor always deliver late from their hangars in Halifax and jack up prices as well, you don't have political problems, you have contract management problems.


----------



## Weinie

dapaterson said:


> If you abandon requirements after minor pushback instead of better articulation of the requirements to explain them to ISED, PSPC and other participants, that's on you, not on the system.
> 
> *If you refuse to ever use the tools in your contract and instead let your vendor always deliver late from their hangars in Halifax and jack up prices as well, you don't have political problems, you have contract management problems.*


There is a non-zero chance that well-timed phone calls didn't influence the political, which influenced contract management.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Weinie said:


> There is a non-zero chance that well-timed phone calls didn't influence the political, which influenced contract management.


@dapaterson If, hypothetically, the DoJ lawyers refuse to enforce the contract because various Ministers get phone calls and we get ordered to accept product ”as is”, tell me again how this is the CAF’s fault?

All hypothetically, of course.


----------



## Weinie

SeaKingTacco said:


> @dapaterson If, hypothetically, the DoJ lawyers refuse to enforce the contract because various Ministers get phone calls and we get ordered to accept product ”as is”, tell me again how this is the CAF’s fault?
> 
> *All hypothetically, of course.*


Snort.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Weinie said:


> Snort.


What? It was a thought experiment. Nothing more…


----------



## dapaterson

SeaKingTacco said:


> @dapaterson If, hypothetically, the DoJ lawyers refuse to enforce the contract because various Ministers get phone calls and we get ordered to accept product ”as is”, tell me again how this is the CAF’s fault?
> 
> All hypothetically, of course.


Then you file a bar complaint.

But if ADM Mat staff behave more like employees of the contractor than representatives of the public (see also: MSP) you have these sorts of problems.


----------



## Weinie

SeaKingTacco said:


> What? It was a thought experiment. Nothing more…


And so was my snort.


----------



## Weinie

dapaterson said:


> *Then you file a bar complaint.*
> 
> But if ADM Mat staff behave more like employees of the contractor than representatives of the public (see also: MSP) you have these sorts of problems.


Sigh. The problem isn't DoJ lawyers.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dapaterson said:


> Then you file a bar complaint.
> 
> But if ADM Mat staff behave more like employees of the contractor than representatives of the public (see also: MSP) you have these sorts of problems.


Are you telling me lawyers will work independent and contrary to the orders of their employer/client?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Weinie said:


> Sigh. The problem isn't DoJ lawyers.


Well, the whole problem is not lawyers….


----------



## dimsum

Presentation to RUSI in Sep.



			https://rusi-ns.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/LCol_Letarte_RCAF_presentation_220914.pdf


----------



## calculus

dimsum said:


> Presentation to RUSI in Sep.
> 
> 
> 
> https://rusi-ns.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/LCol_Letarte_RCAF_presentation_220914.pdf


Interesting, and great catch @dimsum. I only see the MQ-9B in that presentation. I didn't think a winner had been chosen yet, between the MQ-9B and the Heron TP...


----------



## FSTO

Is that a Canadian satellite north of 60?


----------



## Spencer100

calculus said:


> Interesting, and great catch @dimsum. I only see the MQ-9B in that presentation. I didn't think a winner had been chosen yet, between the MQ-9B and the Heron TP...


MQ-9B last man standing.


----------



## dimsum

Spencer100 said:


> MQ-9B last man standing.


I mean, it was one of two bidders.


----------



## captloadie

It is somewhere in the previous 26 pages, but the second bidder backed out of the competition. The project team had only one bid to evaluate to ensure it met the compliancy requirements.


----------



## calculus

captloadie said:


> It is somewhere in the previous 26 pages, but the second bidder backed out of the competition. The project team had only one bid to evaluate to ensure it met the compliancy requirements.


Thanks. I missed that. Good outcome I think. I wonder if we'll choose the version with the PWC engine...









						GA-ASI Tests PT6 E-Series Engine From Pratt & Whitney on MQ-9B RPA
					

SAN DIEGO, Aug.  16, 2022  (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — On July 29, 2022, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) tested a PT6 E-Series model turboprop…




					financialpost.com


----------



## MTShaw

I was curious about the high bandwidth communications needed for the arctic metioned in the presentation. I first found out about Canada’s project here:









						Satellites key to Canada's Arctic surveillance strategy - SpaceNews
					

Citing a changing security climate, Canada is bolstering its defense and surveillance capabilities in the Arctic with a focus on using space assets and new technology.




					spacenews.com
				




Which led me to the procurement page for the Enhanced Satellite Communication Project - Polar for tactical communications in the Arctic. 






						Enhanced Satellite Communication Project - Polar - Defence Capabilities Blueprint
					

Enhanced Satellite Communication Project - Polar - Defence Capabilities Blueprint




					dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca
				




I hope the project is on course.


----------



## Kirkhill

Meanwhile 

Turko-Ukrainian jet powered UCAV trials continue


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/zbghb6


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> Meanwhile
> 
> Turko-Ukrainian jet powered UCAV trials continue
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/zbghb6



No pilot, no problem


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:


> No pilot, no problem



I think I still prefer the Valkyrie.

No runway either!


----------



## Kirkhill

The Valkyrie's kid brother the Mako.  An armed version of the Kratos BQM-167A target drone.

The video shows a pair of Makos operating with a Harrier.  Interesting in that all of them are runway independent.














						Aerial Targets
					

Kratos is a leading provider of state-of-the-art, high-performance aerial target drones.




					www.kratosdefense.com
				












						XQ-58A Valkyrie Flies Longer, Higher, Heavier In Recent Test
					

Kratos continues to expand the flight envelope and capabilities of the stealthy, low-cost XQ-58A, and says customers are starting to line up.




					www.thedrive.com
				












						Tactical UAVs
					

With the emergence of near-peer adversaries and the ever-increasing cost of tactical aircraft acquisition costs.




					www.kratosdefense.com


----------



## Kirkhill

Video of the target drone version of the Mako being prepped and launched.   Half a dozen of them sitting on boat trailers in a hangar.


----------



## Kirkhill

MQ-9 Reaper and Sky Guardian - I believe these are the Canadian "selection"?  @dimsum.


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:


> MQ-9 Reaper and Sky Guardian - I believe these are the Canadian "selection"?  @dimsum.


Yes, the MQ-9B SkyGuardian.  Reaper is the MQ-9A.


----------



## Kirkhill

Kirkhill said:


> Meanwhile
> 
> Turko-Ukrainian jet powered UCAV trials continue
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/zbghb6



The project advances - First hop Dec 3, First flight 11 days later


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/zlqzcd


----------



## Kirkhill

More...


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/zlyi1w

This would seem to put them on pace with the Boeing Australia Loyal Wingman programme.


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> This would seem to put them on pace with the Boeing Australia Loyal Wingman programme.


…surpass…


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> …surpass…



The difference?

One group thinks the project is important and an opportunity?  The other struggles with the threat to the existing order?


----------



## Good2Golf

I was referring to Baykar’s exponential rate of progress, that at current rates will likely sling past even the RAAF and MQ-28 progress.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> I was referring to Baykar’s exponential rate of progress, that at current rates will likely sling past even the RAAF and MQ-28 progress.



Me too...

Bayraktar is invested in getting these birds in the air.  As are their partners supplying the engines - the Ukrainians.

The Ukrainians in particular are looking to solve a real world problem (killing aircraft of all types) in the very near term.

The Aussies and Americans are more invested in keeping the advantage they have held from exploiting earlier solutions - especially manned aircraft.


----------

