# MUxVs (NOT Drones) on Ships



## Underway (4 Mar 2017)

Some of the advantages of having shipboard drones (at least the UAV type) being discussed in this article from CBC.  I would recommend that you go to the site because the images are informative.

Drones on ships



> Canada's fleet of frigates will have new airborne assets in the next decade, according to a report listing the advantages of unmanned airborne drones.
> 
> An unmanned aircraft system, or UAS, could be deployed from the deck of a ship to identify targets, do reconnaissance and gather intelligence in areas where human-piloted helicopters could not.
> 
> ...



As for drones of the non-flying type here is a nice article from Vanguard Magazine on waterborne drones for Canada.

I recently read that the RCN drone projects are ideally going to be integrated (looking for the reference) in that all shipborne drones must be able to use the same control station and control mechanisms (transmitters/receivers, control computers etc...) because of space restrictions.  The idea is that a drone control team would fit into one space and use the same interface for all drones, with the obvious advantages it brings.

What that looks like?  Perhaps a computer with just different drone handling programs on it (like a windows interface) which you bring up depending on the drone.  The control panel would probably be all singing and dancing with some controls locked depending on the drone being used.

**edit for spelling**


----------



## Ostrozac (4 Mar 2017)

Why no mention of the Scan Eagle UAV that was first used afloat in the RCN in 2011? Or the Black Jack UAV that is replacing it?

UAV in the RCN isn't a someday, maybe thing (like UAV in the RCAF), it's a current capability.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Mar 2017)

A UAV isn't a drone though.      I know, I know some people see it as picking flyshit out of pepper.  Who cares what you call it.

Hey, look, a cool picture of a BOFORs SAM system!  The Navy sure has some cool stuff!!








Aside from how people interchange the term drone and UAV/RPA/UAS like they mean the same thing, and stating I've no sea or MH time, I think there'd be lots of the benefit of the MH/UAS team for projecting force, ISR, etc from Mother.  The cap's of the MH world as we know it now will go up once the Cyclone is operational, and having a second asset that could work independent or in co-op with the MH...well it seem like a great concept to me.

- MH can be doing ASW, utility, etc and still have something that can go up and take a look at sfc tracks.
- 2 assets that can go in opposite directions to *have a look* in more than one direction.

Just 2 quick thoughts.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Mar 2017)

If you're interested, here's the MERX listing, and here's the Request for Information package (20 pg. PDF).


----------



## Underway (4 Mar 2017)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Why no mention of the Scan Eagle UAV that was first used afloat in the RCN in 2011? Or the Black Jack UAV that is replacing it?
> 
> UAV in the RCN isn't a someday, maybe thing (like UAV in the RCAF), it's a current capability.



Article from Frontline Magazine Canada that discusses the project in more detail.  Older article though (2016) so bare that in mind as some of the info may be out of date.

Maritime Unmanned Systems.

From the article:


> ... snip....
> Surprisingly, however, when Charlottetown deployed this summer, it was without a UAV capability. In fact, commanders of the RN Halifax-class frigates _have not had the services of an unmanned aerial platform since 2014_, when HMCS Regina conducted the final trial of the ScanEagle.
> ...snip...





> ...snip...
> While the navy may ultimately buy its own system, _in the interim_ it will likely collaborate once again with the army, which recently took possession of the Raven-B, a mini UAV from AeroVironment, and is in the process of acquiring _Boeing Insitu’s RQ-21A Blackjack_ through the U.S. government’s foreign military sales process.
> ...snip...



_*emphasis mine*_
Also from the article regarding integration of the different systems (I knew I read about it somewhere...):



> Among other requirements, the navy wants a multi-domain control station integrated with the ship’s operations centre – to be able to control new fleets of UAVs, USVs and UUVs, as well as the navy’s aerial and surface training targets that are built by Meggitt Target Systems.
> 
> “I believe the RCN needs a control station that’s able to control a UAV one day and a USV the next – with the same infrastructure and antenna,” Nadeau said. “That is a constraint I am imposing on the project.”
> 
> And because ISR is the primary mission for all three platforms, the navy also will be seeking common core payloads integral to each vehicle, as well as unique mission payloads such as magnetic anomaly detection for antisubmarine warfare or synthetic aperture radar for search and rescue.






			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> A UAV isn't a drone though.      I know, I know some people see it as picking flyshit out of pepper.  Who cares what you call it.



I will attempt to change the title of the discussion to "MUxS (Drones) on Ships" so that you don't have to pick at flypaper anymore...  [


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (4 Mar 2017)

I am with EITS on this one (so long as he stops insulting R2D2  ). It's UAV's we are talking about here, not drones.

And I especially like a vertical - no special gear - take-off and landing type. They could be a lot more useful than the Cyclone/Sea Kings in some circumstances. OP CARIBE comes to mind, as does the anti-piracy patrol in the Gulf/horn of Africa area. A big helo is easy to spot at a distance so you hide the weapons or ditch the drugs, whereas a UAV is much harder to spot and is more likely to catch baddies in the act. Moreover, the UAV (or at lest one UAV) can be deployed almost continuously for intel/evidence gathering, and once evidence is obtained, keep constant surveillance until the boarding occurs, while the helo is kept ready to fly as gunship support for the boarding party.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Mar 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am with EITS on this one (so long as he stops insulting R2D2  ). It's UAV's we are talking about here, not drones.



Done!

Its a pet peeve for me, much like people calling an M113 a *tank* irked me when I wore green DEUs. 

A UAV with (even a limited) RADAR capability, an EO/IR...ability to Tx data back to Mother.  Maybe even a few G size buoys or something (IIRC they are trialing really small buoys now..south of us perhaps)?  Or is that going too far.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Mar 2017)

Surprise! Surprise! - We (Canucks) already make made one and it was manufactured in Montreal by Canadair - now Bombardier.


http://www.navaldrones.com/CL327.html



















> CL-227 Sentinel
> CL-327 Guardian
> 
> Canadair�s involvement with the US Navy started in 1988. Several demonstrations of the CL-227 were conducted to show the feasibility of launching and recovering a VTOL air vehicle from the deck of a small combatant ship. In a planned build up, land-based flight tests were conducted at the contractor�s site in Montreal Canada on a tether due to air space restrictions. Flights at Ft. Huachuca, AZ demonstrated the capability of a 20 km data link range. Flights were completed at Medicine Hat, Canada from a wooden deck to simulate the transition across the flight deck of a ship. A flight was accomplished aboard the Jan Tide (an oil rig replenishment ship) to a distance of 6 km from the ship. Although this was a manual flight and recovery, it continued the build up. The next at sea demo was conducted aboard the USS DOYLE (FFG-39) during a STANAVFORLANT cruise. Extensive flight testing both at the Canadair facility in Montreal and also at Patuxent River, MD preceded the cruise to demonstrate the safety of the system. Contractor personnel operated the system from a shelter inside the starboard hangar of the FFG. The final at sea demo was conducted aboard the USS VANDERGRIFT (FFG-48) and included automatic approaches to the deck using a UCARS system supplied by the Sierra Nevada Corp.
> ...



https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/cl-327.htm

I don't think it would take much to update and improve the design.


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Mar 2017)

Speaking as an individual and one with no knowledge of what is being contemplated now, back in the 70s we were quite interested and even a bit excited about the CL289. Canadair had marketed real drones successfully in the 60s and 70s in the CL89 and CL289 models to Canada, the UK and the Germans and perhaps some others. For whatever reason, the company lost interest in the military market and concentrated on the commercial aircraft market. 

By the late 80s the artillery was still interested in UAVs, but had no obvious contenders in sight as far as I know. The Mulroney era defence cuts of 1989 took care of that, but we remained interested and are operating small UAVs in the field regiments and in 4 Artillery Regiment, General Support. 

Bombardier may have missed the boat, and not in recovery operations, if you get my drift. Again, an opinion and not all factual.


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 Mar 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Surprise! Surprise! - We (Canucks) already make made one and it was manufactured in Montreal by Canadair - now Bombardier.
> 
> 
> http://www.navaldrones.com/CL327.html
> ...



I think I saw one of these on Star Trek.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Mar 2017)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Speaking as an individual and one with no knowledge of what is being contemplated now, back in the 70s we were quite interested and even a bit excited about the CL289. Canadair had marketed real drones successfully in the 60s and 70s in the CL89 and CL289 models to Canada, the UK and the Germans and perhaps some others. For whatever reason, the company lost interest in the military market and concentrated on the commercial aircraft market.
> 
> By the late 80s the artillery was still interested in UAVs, but had no obvious contenders in sight as far as I know. The Mulroney era defence cuts of 1989 took care of that, but we remained interested and are operating small UAVs in the field regiments and in 4 Artillery Regiment, General Support.
> 
> Bombardier may have missed the boat, and not in recovery operations, if you get my drift. Again, an opinion and not all factual.



I was attached to the RPV program out of DRES in I think around 1982-84 (there was a divisional artillery exercise there roughly the same time.) Interesting stuff. One of my RSS Warrants had also worked on the 1960 tests with the drones rocket launched from a truck.


----------



## Underway (11 Mar 2017)

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1044129

Apparently, we've been testing UAV's for ice spotting with the CCG since last year.  The type is the Schiebel Camcopter S-100 which has been bought by a number of world navies.

If this works out then it's certainly a good option to have with the AOPS.  It's been stated on this site more than a few times the CCG believe that an embarked ice spotting helo is critical for operations in the arctic, so having a lower cost option (or two if you bring a spare) is certainly something that needs to be looked at.  And it would help the AOPS in their OP capacity as well, allowing the Cyclones to be used for their true warfighting purpose.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Mar 2017)

The Cyclones might just be useful for their primary purpose up north.   ;D


----------

